Author barry
Recipients Jeremy.Hylton, anthony_baxter, barry, chris.jerdonek, docs@python, goodger, ncoghlan
Date 2012-11-30.19:17:47
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
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".

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."

Date User Action Args
2012-11-30 19:17:48barrysetrecipients: + barry, goodger, anthony_baxter, ncoghlan, Jeremy.Hylton, chris.jerdonek, docs@python
2012-11-30 19:17:48barrylinkissue16581 messages
2012-11-30 19:17:47barrycreate