PEP 731: List initial members and mark Active

[gvanrossum]

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--3540.org.readthedocs.build/

[gvanrossum]

I actually have a question. I'm probably overthinking this, but...

On line 36 the PEP currently says

The working group's members are the listed authors of this PEP.

Should we change that? How? Is the PEP a historical document, listing only the initial members in the text, and whose authors will forever be the initial members, or will this PEP also be a living document, describing the WG's charter and membership as it evolves? I.e., do we use the PEP to record the WG membership as it changes, and how? Through the list of authors? By adding a new section (once needed) that lists the current membership, in additional to the initial membership, as this PR does? Both?

[hugovk]

Not all PEPs are historical; generally Standards Track PEPs are the ones which are historical and should become specs elsewhere.

We can look to PEP 13, also a Process PEP, which is "Active" and updated each year with the new SC.

And PEP 1 says:

Some Informational and Process PEPs may also have a status of “Active” if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. PEP 1 (this PEP).

And:

Active (Informational and Process) PEPs may be updated over time to reflect changes to development practices and other details. The precise process followed in these cases will depend on the nature and purpose of the PEP in question.

---

I suggest following the pattern of PEP 13 which only lists the current members. The Git history logs the membership changes.

And change:

-The working group's members are the listed authors of this PEP.
+The working group's initial members are the listed authors of this PEP.

[gvanrossum]

@hugovk That's all fine, except the SC specifically called out the PEP's use as a historical document. (If they hadn't, I would have just named the section "Members". :-)

[encukou]

IMO, the PEP should retain all historical information. Let's not rely on VCS history. But let's only add the necessary “changelog” or “past rosters” sections, and remove any now-false sentences, whenever we first need to change the PEP.

So, +1 to Hugo's suggestion (it makes the current state clearer), but the PR is good as it is.

[gvanrossum]

Okay, I applied Hugo's suggestion, so the members section heading now reads "Members". We'll update when the first membership change occurs.

I also removed the sentence from the abstract implying that WG membership was tied to PEP authorship. I'll just merge it now.