Re: PEP 420: Implicit Namespace Packages

> Unless there are clear advantages over PEP 382, I'm -1 on this PEP, and
> would like to see PEP 382 revived.

When I started this project four years ago, I didn't know how involved 
it would get. At first, there was little interest in it, but the more 
details were discussed, the more opinions appeared. It eventually lead
to PEPs, counter-PEPs, superceded PEPs. I had PEP czars signed up which
then resigned in the face of having to make a difficult decision.

At this point, I'm happy to have the PEP process. Guido will pronounce
on a PEP, and will (as usual) take both community feedback and his own
intuition into account. So there will be a decision, and then the 
community will have to accept it (or else fork Python :-)

So while it is fine that people vote in favor or against individual
PEPs or selected features, they also need to realize that this may
not affect the outcome. Even writing yet another PEP likely will not
affect the outcome. While I'm honored with the support, I personally
have accepted that Guido has made up his mind on this specific detail.

Looking back, I also highly appreciate PJE's pioneering of all this
in setuptools (despite still disagreeing on many other aspects of
setuptools).

Regards,
Martin