PEP 731: C API Working Group Charter

[gvanrossum]

This is ready for review by the PEP editors and the general public. All co-authors have signed off on the current text (except for Victor's clarification of "other languages", which I took the liberty to merge).

---

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

• Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
• File created from the latest PEP template
• PEP has next available number, & set in filename (pep-NNNN.rst), PR title (PEP 123: <Title of PEP>) and PEP header
• Title clearly, accurately and concisely describes the content in 79 characters or less
• Core dev/PEP editor listed as Author or Sponsor, and formally confirmed their approval
• Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
• PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate [none appropriate for this PEP]
• Required sections included
  • Abstract (first section)
  • Copyright (last section; exact wording from template required)
• Code is well-formatted (PEP 7/PEP 8) and is in code blocks, with the right lexer names if non-Python
• PEP builds with no warnings, pre-commit checks pass and content displays as intended in the rendered HTML
• Authors/sponsor added to .github/CODEOWNERS for the PEP

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--3476.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0731/

[gvanrossum]

I intend to use the following process.

• Each co-author reviews and provides feedback (currently the Mandate section probably needs some real work).
• I wait for each co-author to add a comment approving the PR.
• I undraft the PR, and wait for feedback from the PEP editors team (e.g. PEP number).
• Rename to assigned PEP number.
• Once 1-2 of the PEP editors team (minus co-authors) approves, merge.
• Open a Discourse thread to discuss the PEP.
• Link the Discourse thread to Discussions-To and Post-History headers.
• Once Discourse comments stop pouring in (but giving it at least a week), submit to SC tracker.
• ...
• Profit!

[gvanrossum]

Thanks @zooba!

[encukou]

@encukou Could you suggest a specific edit to replace both the sentence above ("The WG's mandate is...") and the bullet points?

I see that's changed now, and I agree with the result!

Let's put the bullet points in the guidelines PEP: capi-workgroup/api-evolution#26

[gvanrossum]

I think we're approaching convergence. Can all of you approve this version, or make specific suggestions? I'd like to tick boxes 1 and 2 above.

[gvanrossum]

I think we're approaching convergence. Can all of you approve this version, or make specific suggestions? I'd like to tick boxes 1 and 2 above.

And box 3, obviously (which follows logically from box 2). But first we need a better sentence for the first sentence of the Abstract.

[vstinner]

LGTM.

[hugovk]

Please use PEP 731.

---

❯ pip install -U pepotron
...
❯ pep next
Next available PEP: 731

https://github.com/hugovk/pepotron

[hugovk]

I've added the checklist from https://github.com/python/peps/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/Add%20a%20new%20PEP.md to the top post, but not checked any off.

One thing needed is a .github/CODEOWNERS entry.

[vstinner]

One thing needed is a .github/CODEOWNERS entry.

I understand that pep-0731.rst @gvanrossum @encukou @vstinner @zooba @iritkatriel should be added to .github/CODEOWNERS.

[JelleZijlstra]

It feels odd to see parts of PEP 729 immediately get reused here, but I'm happy that my proposal was helpful!

[gvanrossum]

It feels odd to see parts of PEP 729 immediately get reused here, but I'm happy that my proposal was helpful!

It felt like a useful template for this type of committee-forming PEP. We're probably going to borrow it for the Docs Editorial Board too. Thanks for coming up with it! We should probably add Contributed-By: Jelle to the final merge commit.

[gvanrossum]

PEP editors:

The template @hugovk linked to claims that Discussions-To and Post-History are required, but I was planning to post to Discourse after the PEP has been merged into the main branch. Am I mistaken? Most of the initial discussion happened at the Brno sprint, and we decided that the next step would be a PEP, which would serve as a starting point for discussions on Discourse. I plan to create the Discourse thread as soon as the PEP is merged, and update the PEP headers as soon as I have a URL for the Discourse thread.

The only TODO I have for myself before this can be merged is @JelleZijlstra's comment on line 23.

[hugovk]

There's a bit of a catch-22: we can either merge the PEP without the fields, then post to discuss.python.org, and update the PEP file in another PR.

Or post to discuss.python.org first, then update the file.

[gvanrossum]

There's a bit of a catch-22: we can either merge the PEP without the fields, then post to discuss.python.org, and update the PEP file in another PR.

Or post to discuss.python.org first, then update the file.

So what's the best practice? It seems the tests pass without those header fields.

[hugovk]

I suggest: merge, post to discuss.python.org, then create a new PR.

This is a bit nicer, you can post a proper link in the discussion.

[Rosuav]

I suggest: merge, post to discuss.python.org, then create a new PR.

Agreed. Let's make them optional fields and permit new PEPs without them, and encourage that followup PR workflow.