On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:

In the Python community, we've been pretty laid back
about how we name packages.  When we were small, this made
sense.  It doesn't make sense any more.

We should not have to come up with a process for recognizing squatters
on simple package names.  We should have something more systematic,
IMO.

Unfortunately, I think the sanest way of avoiding most package
name issues is to base them on domains, as is done in the Java
world.  This goes against the Python philosophy of preferring
flat to nested, but I still think it's better than trying to police squatters,
or to encouraging races to claim top-level names.

For a while, many of us have been pretty careful to use namespaces
for new packages to mitigate this issue.  For example, the zc namespace
is a shorter version of com.zope, but at some point, it won't be fair
for us to claim zc for ourselves.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

I am opposed to this. Requiring someone to have purchased a domain adds a significant
to publishing a project. If there are no requirements that they have purchased the domain
then it's nothing more than a convention and something that anyone who wants to do
this can do.

-----------------
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA