On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Brett Cannon
I'm developing it at https://github.com/brettcannon/github-transition-pep/blob/master/pep-NNNN.rs... . I'm not posting it here as I'm still actively writing it. The only reason I'm mentioning it now is because the migration plan has been very roughly outlined, so if it looks like I'm missing something, please let me know.
I think that the missing part is the analysis of why community (or PSF, or ...) failed to create a streamlined development process themselves. In particular, what steps were made to implement: 1. online code editing with patch creating through hg.python.org interface 2. HG plugin that can fetch a bugXXX patch and apply it to local copy 3. mercurial queue server to allow people to maintain their own queues of patches in parallel and compare between them 4. what steps were made to make "our fork of the Rietveld code review tool" to be the "our installation" or the "global Roundup service" 5. create testing and building infrastructure (or integrating with CI services such as Drone.IO) for downloading patches, making sure they applied cleanly and running the test suite For simple things like "spelling in documentation" the whole thing with patch production and attachment could be done in 6 months provided that development for 4 people is funded (2 code, 1 frontend, 1 art). The most important stuff - what are the current activities for PSF (or whatever) to being raise funds to make it a paid work instead of relying on a really few core developers and volunteers to do professional work on infra that requires rather tight timely coordination and support? For me, there is a more core problem inside. For example, why work under GSoC 2015 for Roundup was not submitted upstream? Because it was not part of the job. People have problems allocating their free time, because time management practices at their HR departments are getting better and better not leaving much for contributions. I think that the core issue here is the money. The new generation talks about startups and monetization, so if we don't address this, there is little hope that new generation will be attracted, at least that's my observation. I think that if PSF can help us with legal issues concerning funding open source activities, we can construct a few teams through Gratipay and do the development in open way. It will be more effective for Python in the long run, because it will showcase that Python is capable of, and provide people a playground to learn about good engineering practices. I am not saying that this will 100% work - maybe there are things ahead that I do not see as well, but what's drives me mad that it seems that nobody is even trying to preserve the open source spirit in all of that. If we will be sacrificing the open source so easily, then the next Python with static typing will be 'Microsoft Python' or 'Facebook Python' will be rewritten from scratch, and all credits gathered through all these years will be lost behind the shiny name of another corporation. Sad.