On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 16:39, Dustin Ingram
I should say: it's also fine if we just don't want a governance model because we think the existing process is fine.
I'm not averse to a governance model (caveat - I consider what we have right now to be a perfectly valid "governance model", it's just less formalised than the one you proposed), I just don't think it necessarily needs to apply to the interoperability PEP side of things (or rather, I don't think there's evidence that we need to *change* the governance model for that).
However, for those that weren't at PyCon this year, one of the outcomes from the packaging mini-summit was the idea that we _might_ need a governance model, hence this proposal.
As I wasn't there, I can't really comment on that. Did anyone present any reasons why what we currently have (for interoperability specs, specifically, as that's the *only* place I have a concern about what you propose) is insufficient, or is not working? I'm a great fan of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but that does mean we need to get feedback if people think it *is* broke :-) Paul