PEP 691: Draft PEP for Simple JSON API

[di]

No description provided.

[cpython-cla-bot]

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.

[JelleZijlstra]

Congratulations on the PEP submission!

Can you also add a CODEOWNERS entry with @dstufft as the owner for this PEP?

[CAM-Gerlach]

I'm very happy to hear that this new API is moving forward, and looking forward to seeing it implemented.

There are a handful of minor technical/rendering issues that can be fixed (inconsistent header order, obsolete BDFL-Delegate header, inconstant code-block syntax, incorrect syntax highlighting, dummy Discussions-To/Post-History, etc.), which I'm happy to help take care of.

However, there are two more critical problems that should be resolved as soon as you can (and we really should have spotted prior to merge), and block me making such changes:

• The Copyright section required by PEP 1 is missing and should be added by an author of the PEP (such as yourself) with the concurrence of the others, in order to release its contents under a usable license.
• While @dstufft is the SC-designated PEP-Delegate for PyPI infra, while he is allowed to also simultaneously be the PEP's Sponsor (given none of the others are core devs or PEP editors, IIRC), per PEP 1 he cannot simultaneously be PEP-Delegate and an author of the PEP (as that would be an obvious conflict of interest). Therefore, to resolve this, I would suggest he remove himself as an author of the PEP and serve as the PEP's sponsor instead (alternatively, he could recuse himself as the PEP-Delegate, or apply to the SC for a special exception if no one objected).

Also, while they are not strictly required and not as much a priority immediately, for the benefit of both reviewers and the community at large, you might to think about adding the relevant Suggested Sections from PEP 1, PEP 12 and the template, particularly "Security Implications", "Backwards Compatibility" and/or "Reference Implementation", and given the "answers" in the "FAQ" each closely fit the purpose of the standard "Rejected Ideas" section, I'd suggest retilting them accordingly.

As a final sidenote, there's no need to include a non-working dummy link for Discussions-To; as PEP 12 states, you should instead simply elide it when first submitting the PEP, and then just add it (and Post-History) immediately after.