Hello distutils-sig, Second version for review. As per Nick’s comments, I imagine after this PEP gets accepted, the Board will have to publish a Resolution to finalize it. I don’t think this part of the process needs to be mentioned. Simply put, the PSF is the implementor of the accepted change. As with any other implementations, that might trigger some minor changes to an otherwise accepted PEP.
Changes from RFC 1: - specified where the document goes on the PyPI website - removed slang - covered legal matters, specifically the role of the PSF, pre-emptive invalidation of certain names, and mentioned trademark and patent violations
Full change log: https://github.com/python/peps/commits/master/pep-0541.txt
I decided to not otherwise touch on: - name squatting. The maintainers review every case reported by a user and are careful not to make any sudden moves. This makes me confident I won’t be stripped from a name registered yesterday on the basis of somebody reporting it tomorrow. On the other hand, legitimizing certain forms of squatting is asking for trouble as it can be abused.
- suggesting anybody can escalate to the PSF Board if they are unhappy with a decision. Yes, this is always an option but we should not advertise it as effectively a “second chance”. I feel this is asking for trouble and undermines the rest of the document.
- reachability by a bug tracker. The maintainers may decide to reach out on the project’s bug tracker to get attention. But ultimately they are seeking contact with the owner, not with the users.
- reachability attempts schedule. The maintainers should be free to decide on the most reasonable schedule that works with their calendar.
- somebody suggested a part of this PEP should be sending out an announcement about this policy to existing package owners. It’s funny because it’s a chicken and egg problem. The ones that we won’t be able to reach with an announcement might be the ones hit by the policy change ;-)
Alright, I think that’s it. Full body below. Thanks for thoughtful and timely review! - Ł
PEP: 541 Title: Package Index Name Retention Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ Author: Łukasz Langa firstname.lastname@example.org Status: Draft Type: Process Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 12-January-2017
Existing package repositories such as CPAN _, NPM _, and GitHub _ will be investigated as prior art in this field.
Given that package names on the Index are sharing a single flat namespace, a unique name is a finite resource. The growing age of the Package Index causes a constant rise of situations of conflict between the current use of the name and a different suggested use of the same name.
This document aims to provide general guidelines for solving the most typical cases of such conflicts.
While the Package Index is not a backup service, the maintainers of the Package Index do their best to keep that content accessible indefinitely in its published form. However, in certain edge cases the greater community's needs might overweigh the individual's expectation of ownership of a package name.
The use cases covered by this document are:
* Abandoned projects:
* continued maintenance by a different set of users; or * removal from the Index for use with a different project.
* Active projects:
* resolving disputes over a name.
* Invalid projects.
The user of the Package Index is solely responsible for being reachable by the Package Index maintainers for matters concerning projects that the user owns. In every case where contacting the user is necessary, the maintainers will try to do so at least three times, using the following means of contact:
* the e-mail address on file in the user's profile on the Package Index; * the e-mail address listed in the Author field for a given project uploaded to the Index; and * any e-mail addresses found in the given project's documentation on the Index or on the listed Home Page.
The maintainers stop trying to reach the user after six weeks.
Abandoned projects ------------------
A project is considered *abandoned* when ALL of the following are met:
* owner not reachable (see Reachability above); * no releases within the past twelve months; and * no activity from the owner on the project's home page (or no home page listed).
All other projects are considered *active*.
Continued maintenance of an abandoned project ---------------------------------------------
If a candidate appears willing to continue maintenance on an *abandoned* project, ownership of the name is transferred when ALL of the following are met:
* the project has been determined *abandoned* by the rules described above; * the candidate is able to demonstrate own failed attempts to contact the existing owner; * the candidate is able to demonstrate improvements made on the candidate's own fork of the project; * the candidate is able to demonstrate why a fork under a different name is not an acceptable workaround; and * the maintainers of the Package Index don't have any additional reservations.
Under no circumstances will a name be reassigned against the wishes of a reachable owner.
Removal of an abandoned project -------------------------------
Projects are never removed from the Package Index solely on the basis of abandonment. Artifacts uploaded to the Package Index hold inherent historical value.
An *abandoned* project can be transferred to a new owner for purposes of reusing the name when ALL of the following are met:
* the project has been determined *abandoned* by the rules described above; * the candidate is able to demonstrate own failed attempts to contact the existing owner; * the candidate is able to demonstrate that the project suggested to reuse the name already exists and meets notability requirements; * the candidate is able to demonstrate why a fork under a different name is not an acceptable workaround; * download statistics on the Package Index for the existing package indicate project is not being used; and * the maintainers of the Package Index don't have any additional reservations.
Name conflict resolution for active projects --------------------------------------------
The maintainers of the Package Index are not arbiters in disputes around *active* projects. There are many possible scenarios here, a non-exclusive list describing some real-world examples is presented below. None of the following qualify for package name ownership transfer:
1. User A and User B share project X. After some time they part ways and each of them wants to continue the project under name X. 2. User A owns a project X outside the Package Index. User B creates a package under the name X on the Index. After some time, User A wants to publish project X on the Index but realizes name is taken. This is true even if User A's project X gains notability and the User B's project X is not notable. 3. User A publishes project X to the Package Index. After some time User B proposes bug fixes to the project but no new release is published by User A. This is true even if User A agrees to publish a new version and later doesn't, even if User B's changes are merged to the source code repository for project X.
Again, the list above is not exclusive. The maintainers of the Package Index recommend users to get in touch with each other and solve the issue by respectful communication (see the PSF Code of Conduct _).
Invalid projects ----------------
A project published on the Package Index meeting ANY of the following is considered invalid and will be removed from the Index:
The Package Index maintainers pre-emptively declare certain package names as unavailable for security reasons.
If you find a project that you think might be considered invalid, create a support request _. Maintainers of the Package Index will review the case.
The role of the Python Software Foundation ------------------------------------------
The Python Software Foundation _ is the non-profit legal entity that provides the Package Index as a community service.
The Package Index maintainers can escalate issues covered by this document for resolution by the PSF Board if the matter is not clear enough. Some decisions *require* additional judgement by the Board, especially in cases of Code of Conduct violations or legal claims. Decisions made by the Board are published as Resolutions _.
The Board has the final say in any disputes covered by this document and can decide to reassign or remove a project from the Package Index after careful consideration even when not all requirements listed here are met.
Prior art =========
NPM contains a separate section linked from the front page called `Package Name Disputes https://www.npmjs.com/policies/disputes`_. It is described as a "living document", as of January 2017 its contents might be summarized as follows:
* package name squatting is prohibited; * users wanting to reuse a project name are required to contact the existing author, with cc to email@example.com; * all contact must conform to the NPM Code of Conduct; * in case of no resolution after a few weeks, npm inc. holds the right to the final decision in the matter.
CPAN lets any user upload modules with the same name. PAUSE, a related index, only lists modules uploaded by the primary maintainer or listed co-maintainers. CPAN documentation doesn't address disputes otherwise.
GitHub's terms of service contain an exhaustive list of behavior not meeting general conditions of use. While not codified anywhere, GitHub does agree for users to reclaim abandoned account names by archiving the abandoned account and letting the other user or organization rename their account. This is done on a case-by-case basis.
Rejected Proposals ==================
The original approach was to hope for the best and solve issues as they arise without written policy. This is not sustainable. The lack of generally available guidelines in writing on package name conflict resolution is causing unnecessary tensions. From the perspective of users, decisions made by the Package Index maintainers without written guidelines may appear arbitrary. From the perspective of the Package Index maintainers, solving name conflicts is a stressful task due to risk of unintentional harm due to lack of defined policy.
..  The Python Package Index (https://pypi.python.org/)
..  The Comprehensive Perl Archive Network (http://www.cpan.org/)
..  Node Package Manager (https://www.npmjs.com/package/left-pad)
..  GitHub (https://github.com/)
..  Python Community Code of Conduct (https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/)
..  PyPI Support Requests (https://sourceforge.net/p/pypi/support-requests/)
..  Python Software Foundation (https://www.python.org/psf/)
..  PSF Board Resolutions (https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/resolutions/)
This document has been placed in the public domain.
The many participants of the Distutils and Catalog SIGs for their ideas over the years.
.. Local Variables: mode: indented-text indent-tabs-mode: nil sentence-end-double-space: t fill-column: 70 End: