On 23 Sep 2014 00:19, "Antoine Pitrou" email@example.com wrote:
Donald Stufft <donald <at> stufft.io> writes:
PyPI inherinently has complete control over who owns what name on PyPI.
Political authority does not derive from technical control, though.
As Toshio said that are situations where it makes *obvious* sense to
ownership of a project. Using Django as an pretty good example here,
four people able to make releases there, until fairly recently there
two if I recall. I don't think anyone would be against PyPI transfering ownership of Django to another active core developer of Django in the
that all of the people with permissions on PyPI were gone in some
Assuming the remaining Django core developers agree on it, then, yes, that can make sense. That's because they are the primary authors of the project (even though they might not have been listed as such on PyPI).
The case people are worried about is whether someone who is not part of
original project author(s) or maintainer(s) can get assigned the PyPI
In that case people should use one of the forks; there's no reason for
to crown a successor.
That's why I consider it important to get the original project's issue tracker involved in the transfer process. I'd also be OK with a process that required an affirmative "Yes" from the project community, defaulting to "No transfer" in the case of a lack of response.
Transfers are most needed for highly active projects where a fork could have a lot of ripple effects. I think it's reasonable to interpret "nobody cared enough to say yes or no" as "nobody cares enough for a transfer to be needed - just fork it rather than claiming the name".