On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 02:44, Dustin Ingram email@example.com wrote:
Hi all, sorry for a bit of a delay here. I have a first draft of the governance model I've been working on for the PyPA, and I'd like to solicit some feedback.
TL;DR: it's consensus-based governance using a lightweight RFC process.
How does this (in particular the discussion on RFCs) relate to packaging standards? You say:
""" Does this mean that we won't be using the PEP process anymore?
For a number of things we currently use the PEP process for, such as defining standards, making changes to package metadata fields, etc., the answer is yes, this governance model is designed to replace that process """
As the BDFL delegate for packaging, I'm not sure I approve of that :-) More specifically, I *don't* approve of the fact that this document doesn't clearly distinguish between the roles of the PyPA and its BDFRN, and the packaging standards process and its BDFL-delegate.
Did I just experience an attempted coup? ;-)
More seriously, I think it's extremely important that we do clarify those boundaries. As examples, would PEPs 517 and 518 come under my remit, or yours? What about the current discussions on modifying the compatibility tag mechanisms to allow for Linux distro-specific wheels? (In my view, these are clearly "packaging standards" issues, not "PyPA issues"). On the other hand, I don't see "standardization and coordination across PyPA projects" *outside of* formal packaging standards as being in my remit, nor do I consider proposals to accept a project into the PyPA as being something in my area (except, obviously, as a contributing PyPA member).
Nick - as the person with prior experience of being packaging BDFL-delegate, what's your view as to how the two areas should be distinguished?