On Dec 31, 2014, at 01:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

>As we've started working through the post-release PEP 440 changes, I think
>this is definitely worthy of a separate PEP.

I'm open to discussion and ideas, but I want to caution against spreading
information about the PEP (and more largely, enhancing Python) process over
too many documents.   PEP 1 and the process has worked well I think because
it's relatively easy to find information on the process in a concise format.
I also don't think we necessarily need to cross-and-dot every I-and-T.
Flexibility can be a good thing too.