PEP 639: Update PEP delegate, post history and CODEOWNERS

[CAM-Gerlach]

Update the PEP delegate for PEP 639, pending an approving outcome of the relevant PyPA committers discussion. Also updates the post history.

[JelleZijlstra]

CI failure looks spurious (something on GitHub's side is down).

[CAM-Gerlach]

Not sure what's going on with the checks; everything builds fine locally. Looks like a transient GH Actions network error.

[CAM-Gerlach]

GitHub Actions is experiencing degraded performance

[CAM-Gerlach]

Looks like its fixed. @JelleZijlstra , can you re-run?

[JelleZijlstra]

All green now.

[CAM-Gerlach]

Thanks, standby on this for a week or so until the discussion runs its course. @pfmoore how long should we wait, assuming no complications?

[ofek]

Quite a few approvals already

[pfmoore]

A PyPA vote is 7 days, so I'm planning on waiting till next Tuesday

[CAM-Gerlach]

Hey @pfmoore and @brettcannon , are we okay to merge this now, given its been 8 days, no one has objected and everyone who did speak up approved?

[JelleZijlstra]

Looks good to me; it's been a week and there were no objections on the linked thread. Your call on whether to wait for additional confirmation from Paul.

[AA-Turner]

On a pedantic reading of PEP 1, I don't think PEP editors are allowed to be listed in CODEOWNERS.

Update .github/CODEOWNERS [7] such that any core developer co-author(s) or sponsor are listed for your new file such that any future pull requests will be assigned to them.

A PEP editor can be a sponsor, but the case of PEP editors being authors seems to be missed as an edge case.

However, I think it makes sense for PEP editors to be listed here, so probably better to update PEP 1 to allow this? If other @python/pep-editors agree I could propose an update the affected lines.

A

[JelleZijlstra]

Good catch. I'm already listed as the owner of PEPs 673 and 675 and I'm not a core dev, so in practice we're not following this rule already. Let's amend PEP 1 to make it clear. I'd suggest wording like "any author or sponsor with write access to the PEPs repository".

[AA-Turner]

See #2252

A

[CAM-Gerlach]

Yeah, that certainly seems like a clear oversight to me; PEP 1 may not have envisioned PEP editors who weren't core developers, like you, me and @JelleZijlstra are today—and it affects you too on your PEP 676, since you're the author but not a sponsor either.

[pfmoore]

Thanks for the reminder!