This issue is to define "PEP editor" (or "PEP editors") in PEP 1 before it is used in the document and to provide certain clarifying information.

In particular, PEP 1 should say whether editorship is an invitation-only status and/or how one becomes a PEP editor.  It would also be good if it said (for transparency) how to go about seeing the current list of editors.

There is also inconsistent singular/plural usage that I think would be good to clear up.  Currently, in many places PEP 1 says "the PEP editor" (singular), so it's not clear if each PEP has its own editor, if there is a single PEP editor for all PEPs at any one time, or if it simply means "the PEP editor that happens to reply to an e-mail to peps@python.org".

PEP 0 also has this issue because its introduction says, "[This] PEP contains the index of all Python Enhancement Proposals, known as PEPs.  PEP numbers are assigned by the PEP Editor, and once assigned are never changed."

On Nov 30, 2012, at 02:00 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:

>In particular, PEP 1 should say whether editorship is an invitation-only
>status and/or how one becomes a PEP editor.  It would also be good if it said
>(for transparency) how to go about seeing the current list of editors.

IMO, becoming a PEP editor is by invitation-only, as decided by consensus of
the current set of PEP editors.  The current list of editors is exactly
equivalent to the members of the peps@ mailing list, currently:

Anthony Baxter
Barry Warsaw
Brett Cannon
Georg Brandl
David Goodger
Guido van Rossum
Jesse Noller

If there are editors who are not members of this mailing list, they should be!
If there are editors who want to retire and be removed from the list, please
let me know.

>There is also inconsistent singular/plural usage that I think would be good
>to clear up.  Currently, in many places PEP 1 says "the PEP editor"
>(singular), so it's not clear if each PEP has its own editor, if there is a
>single PEP editor for all PEPs at any one time, or if it simply means "the
>PEP editor that happens to reply to an e-mail to peps@python.org".

The latter, and it should be plural everywhere.

>PEP 0 also has this issue because its introduction says, "[This] PEP contains
>the index of all Python Enhancement Proposals, known as PEPs.  PEP numbers
>are assigned by the PEP Editor, and once assigned are never changed."

Plural.

Thanks for providing the info.  To clarify, is membership in peps@ restricted to editors?

On Nov 30, 2012, at 07:55 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:

>Thanks for providing the info.  To clarify, is membership in peps@ restricted
>to editors?

Yes.  It may not be a perfect overlap, but that's the best we have, and should
be the intent, IMHO.

+1

I wrote the stuff in PEP 1 about committers acting as editors, but agree
the editor part itself also falls into the "currently unwritten, but should
be written" category.

From PEP 1: "If the PEP author is a Python developer, assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise assign it to the [a] PEP editor."

Given that the list is small, something else that might make sense is adding a "PEP editors" area to the Experts Index in the devguide.  That would allow one to do more easily what is stated above, for example.

Btw, I will prepare a patch that incorporates the information that Barry provided.

Attaching proposed patch.

The patch also makes some minor stylistic improvements and typo fixes (e.g. s/work flow/workflow/, s/we/the PEP editors/, and eliminating trailing whitespace on a few lines).

+PEP editorship is by invitation of the current editors.  The address
+<peps@python.org> is a mailing list consisting of PEP editors.

The "consisting" doesn't sound too well to me, maybe "reserved to"?

+PEP-related email should be sent to this address (no cross-posting please).

emails?

> The "consisting" doesn't sound too well to me, maybe "reserved to"?

"Reserved for" sounds good to me.  Originally I was thinking of "limited to" or "restricted to," but that had a connotation of exclusivity I wanted to avoid.

Are there any comments on the patch from the PEP 1 authors?  PEP 1 says that I should assign this to one of the PEP authors.  Any takers, or is this something I can commit on the authors' behalf?

Committed, along with a few other changes, as http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/24d5623ab21e

Subsequent commit addresses Ezio's comment by changing the phrase to "list for contacting the PEP editors".

The attitude I mainly take to PEP 1 now is that if I notice cases where what it says and what we actually do really don't match, I update the PEP accordingly. If I get anything glaringly wrong, I trust people will yell at me on python-checkins about it :)

Thanks a lot, Nick.  It looks like you also went ahead and took care of issue 16746. :)