Re: Transfer of power

On 07/13/2018 03:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2018, at 15:11, Jack Jansen <jack.jansen@cwi.nl> wrote:
>> How about a triumvirate (or trium*ate if “vir” is seen as too male-centric, and actually the “3”
isn’t important either) where unanimity is required for language changes (i.e. basically for
accepting a PEP)?
> Possibly, but even if unanimity can’t be achieved, I feel strongly that any decision coming from
the GUIDO/Cabal/Council should be give as a single party.  E.g. if Alice and Bob +1 PEP 801 and
Carol -1’s it, I don’t think any purpose is served by breaking that out into individual votes.  I
would hope that the council members support each other and the body’s decision even if it doesn’t
go an individual’s way.

I disagree.  My proposal for Python's Council Of Elders is partially 
based on the Supreme Court Of The United States.  For example, SCOTUS 
judges are appointed for life, and I think PCOE members should be too.

When SCOTUS renders a decision:

  * the deliberation is held in private, but then
  * the judges cast their votes,
  * the "winning" side writes up the official decision, called "the
    Court's opinion",
  * and any member may contribute their own individual opinion,
    concurring /or/ dissenting, and finally
  * all votes and opinions contributed to the decision are made public.

This seems like a sensible approach for the PCOE to me too.  I prefer 
more transparency in governance generally, and as a member of the 
community governed by this body I'd prefer more rather than less insight 
into the process and the thinking that went into the decision.  I don't 
think it's a requirement for the PCOE to present as a unified front or 
to work in secret for them to be supportive of each other and of the 
body's decision.

Sunlight, not darkness,


//arry/