Description

hugovk

opened on Aug 6, 2026

Issue body actions

Some PEPs aren't being reviewed as quickly as we'd like and can sit waiting for review before merge for too long. This holds up PEP discussion, which can be challenging enough for authors.

@StanFromIreland and @ZeroIntensity have volunteered to join the PEP Editor team.

What do @python/pep-editors think?

Reacted by Carol Willing, Jelle Zijlstra and C.A.M. Gerlach

Activity

1. hugovk

   added

   metaRelated to the repo itself and its processesRelated to the repo itself and its processes

   on Aug 6, 2026
2. Rosuav commented on Aug 15, 2026

   

   Rosuav

   on Aug 15, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   I don't have any objection to either of them. But as to the PEP review question, I can say something else: It's VERY easy for the notification emails to get lost. I'm here now a week after you posted this issue and am reacting to the two notifications for outright spam.

   So maybe - orthogonally to the question of more editors - what we need is a viable workflow. Part of the problem is that some of the current issues have been going back and forth quite a bit, legitimately, which means that "there's an issue that's been open for several days" isn't an immediately-obvious flag.

   For my part, I'm going to try to keep a closer eye on the Issues/PRs tabs, and will look over what's there right now; but maybe we need to be more aggressive about flagging things as drafts if they're not ready, and then anything that hasn't had any activity in a week should be checked over to see why.

   Reacted by Stan Ulbrych, Carol Willing and C.A.M. Gerlach

Issue actions