Abstract

This PEP provides an overview of the selection process for a new model of Python language governance in the wake of Guido’s retirement. Once the governance model is selected, it will be codified in PEP 13.

Here is a list of PEPs related to the governance model selection process. PEPs in the lower 8000s describe the general process for selecting a governance model.

• PEP 8001 - Python Governance Voting Process

  This PEP describes how the vote for the new governance model will be conducted. It outlines the voting method, timeline, criteria for participation, and explicit list of eligible voters.

• PEP 8002 - Open Source Governance Survey

  Surveys will be conducted of governance models for similar open source and free software projects, and summaries of these models will be outlined in this PEP. These surveys will serve as useful barometers for how such projects can be successfully governed, and may serve as inspiration for Python’s own governance model. Python is unique, so it’s expected that it will have its own spin on governance, rather than directly adopting any of those surveyed.

PEPs in the 801Xs describe the actual proposals for Python governance. It is expected that these PEPs will cover the broad scope of governance, and that differences in details (such as the size of a governing council) will be covered in the same PEP, rather than in potentially vote-splitting individual PEPs.

• PEP 8010 - The Technical Leader Governance Model

  This PEP proposes a continuation of the singular technical project leader model. Also within scope is whether an advisory council aids or supports the BDFL. This PEP does not name either the next BDFL, nor members of such an advisory council. For that, see PEP 13.

• PEP 8011 - Python Governance Model Lead by Trio of Pythonistas

  This PEP describes a new model of Python governance lead by a Trio of Pythonistas (TOP). It describes the role and responsibilities of the Trio. This PEP does not name members of the Trio. For that, see PEP 13.

• PEP 8012 - The Community Governance Model

  This is a placeholder PEP for a new model of Python governance based on consensus and voting, without the role of a centralized singular leader or a governing council. It describes how, when, and why votes are conducted for decisions affecting the Python language. It also describes the criteria for voting eligibility.

• PEP 8013 - The External Governance Model

  This PEP describes a new model of Python governance based on an external council who are responsible for ensuring good process. Elected by the core development team, this council may reject proposals that are not sufficiently detailed, do not consider all affected users, or are not appropriate for the upcoming release. This PEP does not name members of such a council. For that, see PEP 13.

• PEP 8014 - The Commons Governance Model

  This PEP describes a new model of Python governance based on a council of elders who are responsible for ensuring a PEP is supported by a sufficient majority of the Python community before being accepted. Unlike some of the other governance PEPs it explicitly does not specify who has voting rights and what a majority vote consists of. In stead this is determined by the council of elders on a case-by-case basis.

• PEP 8015 - Organization of the Python community

  This PEP formalizes the current organization of the Python community and proposes 3 main changes: formalize the existing concept of “Python teams”; give more autonomy to Python teams; replace the BDFL (Guido van Rossum) with a new “Python board” of 3 members which has limited roles, mostly decide how a PEP is approved (or rejected).

• PEP 8016 - The Steering Council Model

  This PEP proposes a model of Python governance based around a steering council. The council has broad authority, which they seek to exercise as rarely as possible; instead, they use this power to establish standard processes, like those proposed in the other 801x-series PEPs. This follows the general philosophy that it’s better to split up large changes into a series of small changes that can be reviewed independently: instead of trying to do everything in one PEP, we focus on providing a minimal-but-solid foundation for further governance decisions.

Additional governance models may be added before the final selection.

Copyright

This document has been placed in the public domain.