Hi core maintainers, Half a year ago Keenan Szulik from Tidelift reached me and Holger about the possibility of pytest joining Tidelift for funding. At first our answer was "not right now" for two reasons: we didn't actually knew the platform (for example what expect in terms of obligations) and how to split the funding among maintainers. Some time later Keenan reached us again to see if we had thought about the idea some more. I reached some other OS maintainers which have joined Tidelift and the overall response was positive: they were getting paid and there were no obligations whatsoever after joining the platform other than "maintain the project", which they were already doing anyway. There's no obligation to market the platform in anyway as well (say, being forced to put their logo on the website). Here's a nice discussion of the Pillow maintainers about how to split the funding: https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/issues/3469. I decided then to join Tidelift with pytest-mock: it is a small project and I'm the sole maintainer, so it seemed like a good choice to beta test the platform. After two months, the overall experience is positive: I didn't get any demands from Tidelift other than the occasional email (twice a month) about how the project is doing in terms of Tidelift subscribers, and I've been paid twice know without fuss. So I think the overall experience is positive. So my question is: how do the core maintainers feel about pytest joining Tidelift? Here's their license agreement: https://tidelift.com/docs/lifting/agreement If we are to join, there's the question about how to split the funds over the core maintainers. I propose we follow how other projects are handling it: * The amount is split evenly between active maintainers. By "active maintainer" here I mean that has been participating in discussions and/or contributing PRs "lately". I think every core maintainer is reasonable regarding being active or not, so I don't expect misunderstandings here. * If an inactive maintainer becomes active again, they will start to get their share on the next payment (by the end of every month as per Tidelift policy). Same if an active maintainer stops activity. With the above guidelines, I would say the current "active" core maintainers are Daniel, Anthony and myself, with Ronny joining back soon. The amount involved is not much, but it is an extra which is nice to have for (what I can see) work we are already doing anyway. It is also possible to cancel the subscription for any time given 30 days notice. Thoughts? Cheers, Bruno.
Hey, On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 05:25:58PM -0300, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
there were no obligations whatsoever after joining the platform other than "maintain the project", which they were already doing anyway. There's no obligation to market the platform in anyway as well (say, being forced to put their logo on the website).
Their website says otherwise: https://tidelift.com/docs/lifting/marketing "At Tidelift, we're working with maintainers to jointly create a product. As with any product offering, we need to tell people the product exists." "When you sign up to lift a package and get paid, we're asking for you to keep a mention of the Tidelift Subscription at minimum on your project's main "home page"—whether that's a dedicated website or simply a README on GitHub. We're flexible about the exact wording and format, and happy to consult with you on it." "But the main reason is that we do need to tell potential subscribers about the product, so they can support you by buying it!" Not sure if I want to think of pytest as a product which should be bought by subscribers ;) There's also some other "tasks" - not that I'd disagree with them being a good thing, but it's way more than "no obligations whatsoever" (like looking at their dependency scanner, and disclosing security vulnerabilities to them in their dashboard): https://tidelift.com/docs/lifting/tasks-overview Florian -- https://www.qutebrowser.org | me@the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/
Em qui, 2 de mai de 2019 04:44, Florian Bruhin <me@the-compiler.org> escreveu:
Hey,
there were no obligations whatsoever after joining the platform other
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 05:25:58PM -0300, Bruno Oliveira wrote: than
"maintain the project", which they were already doing anyway. There's no obligation to market the platform in anyway as well (say, being forced to put their logo on the website).
Their website says otherwise:
https://tidelift.com/docs/lifting/marketing
"At Tidelift, we're working with maintainers to jointly create a product. As with any product offering, we need to tell people the product exists."
"When you sign up to lift a package and get paid, we're asking for you to keep a mention of the Tidelift Subscription at minimum on your project's main "home page"—whether that's a dedicated website or simply a README on GitHub. We're flexible about the exact wording and format, and happy to consult with you on it."
"But the main reason is that we do need to tell potential subscribers about the product, so they can support you by buying it!"
Hmm you are right, but I think it is more of a suggestion rather than an obligation.
Not sure if I want to think of pytest as a product which should be bought by subscribers ;)
Me neither, but I don't think that is the case... Companies subscribe to tidelift, and pytest happens to be one of the projects on the platform. We the maintainers own the project and may unsubscribe from the platform at any time.
There's also some other "tasks" - not that I'd disagree with them being a good thing, but it's way more than "no obligations whatsoever" (like looking at their dependency scanner, and disclosing security vulnerabilities to them in their dashboard): https://tidelift.com/docs/lifting/tasks-overview
You are right. Fortunately those were very quick to do in my experience with pytest-mock. I believe the same amount of work would be required by pytest, even if it is a much larger project. Other than that, any other opinions Florian? :) Cheers, Bruno
Florian
-- https://www.qutebrowser.org | me@the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/
On 02.05.19 11:05, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> there were no obligations whatsoever after joining the platform other than > "maintain the project", which they were already doing anyway. There's no > obligation to market the platform in anyway as well (say, being forced to > put their logo on the website).
Their website says otherwise:
https://tidelift.com/docs/lifting/marketing
"At Tidelift, we're working with maintainers to jointly create a product. As with any product offering, we need to tell people the product exists."
"When you sign up to lift a package and get paid, we're asking for you to keep a mention of the Tidelift Subscription at minimum on your project's main "home page"—whether that's a dedicated website or simply a README on GitHub. We're flexible about the exact wording and format, and happy to consult with you on it."
"But the main reason is that we do need to tell potential subscribers about the product, so they can support you by buying it!"
Hmm you are right, but I think it is more of a suggestion rather than an obligation.
It reads more like a requirement. See https://tidelift.com/docs/lifting/maintenance:
One reason for this is that it proves you're a maintainer of the project and that there's a consensus among comaintainers to participate in Tidelift.
But that would be fine I guess, and could have just the form of a badge in the list of badges we have already.
You are right. Fortunately those were very quick to do in my experience with pytest-mock. I believe the same amount of work would be required by pytest, even if it is a much larger project.
The only more involving / recurring task appears to be pasting the release notes over into their dashboard for releases, which is not that hard - and they plan to automate this. I like their approach, and am in for also receiving funds. Cheers, Daniel. -- https://daniel.hahler.de/
Hi Bruno, On Wed 01 May 2019 at 17:25 -0300, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
So my question is: how do the core maintainers feel about pytest joining Tidelift?
Thanks for the wait-and-see approach taken, I likewise have shifted my opinion on this from some scepticism to mostly positive. So if there's a few people interested in pytest joining tidelift I'd be happy to support this.
If we are to join, there's the question about how to split the funds over the core maintainers. I propose we follow how other projects are handling it:
* The amount is split evenly between active maintainers. By "active maintainer" here I mean that has been participating in discussions and/or contributing PRs "lately". I think every core maintainer is reasonable regarding being active or not, so I don't expect misunderstandings here.
* If an inactive maintainer becomes active again, they will start to get their share on the next payment (by the end of every month as per Tidelift policy). Same if an active maintainer stops activity.
With the above guidelines, I would say the current "active" core maintainers are Daniel, Anthony and myself, with Ronny joining back soon.
Why the rules about active? Seems complicated and more open to arguing. I liked the Pillow guidelines you linked: https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/contributors can express interest and https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/core decides on split (which I guess can be anything from 0% to 100%). With the same assumption that the core members are reasonable that should end up as roughly the same. Mind you in practice I have no issue with the above proposal of people right now, but would also not mind if e.g. hpk or ronny wanted to be part right now (I'll pass myself). Likewise there are probably cases where I wouldn't mind people not in core being paid for some time. But in general I'm +1, let's make it happen if there's anyone interested in getting paid. Cheers, Floris
Hi Floris, On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:25 PM Floris Bruynooghe <flub@devork.be> wrote:
Why the rules about active? Seems complicated and more open to arguing. I liked the Pillow guidelines you linked: https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/contributors can express interest and https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/core decides on split (which I guess can be anything from 0% to 100%). With the same assumption that the core members are reasonable that should end up as roughly the same.
Mind you in practice I have no issue with the above proposal of people right now, but would also not mind if e.g. hpk or ronny wanted to be part right now (I'll pass myself). Likewise there are probably cases where I wouldn't mind people not in core being paid for some time.
I wrote those "rules" just to come up with a solid proposal in the e-mail, but I do like yours better. Letting developers opt-in to a share is fair and reasonable, certainly. I think we should even always split the funding evenly between those opting to receive it, to further avoid any arguing on that. But in general I'm +1, let's make it happen if there's anyone interested
in getting paid.
Great, let's see what others think. Cheers, Bruno.
Hi all, even tho its going to take a while before im going to be active again, i think its a good idea to have this as a opt-in. Currently a Fair Share Mechanism on a opt in basis seems fair, if we ever hit a situation where someone could have a reasonably set up part/full-time position primarily on pytest we should take a look at how division is fair in that case. so +1 -- Ronny Am 03.05.19 um 14:11 schrieb Bruno Oliveira:
Hi Floris,
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:25 PM Floris Bruynooghe <flub@devork.be <mailto:flub@devork.be>> wrote:
Why the rules about active? Seems complicated and more open to arguing. I liked the Pillow guidelines you linked: https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/contributors can express interest and https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/core decides on split (which I guess can be anything from 0% to 100%). With the same assumption that the core members are reasonable that should end up as roughly the same.
Mind you in practice I have no issue with the above proposal of people right now, but would also not mind if e.g. hpk or ronny wanted to be part right now (I'll pass myself). Likewise there are probably cases where I wouldn't mind people not in core being paid for some time.
I wrote those "rules" just to come up with a solid proposal in the e-mail, but I do like yours better. Letting developers opt-in to a share is fair and reasonable, certainly.
I think we should even always split the funding evenly between those opting to receive it, to further avoid any arguing on that.
But in general I'm +1, let's make it happen if there's anyone interested in getting paid.
Great, let's see what others think.
Cheers, Bruno.
_______________________________________________ pytest-dev mailing list pytest-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
Hi Ronny, On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 11:09 AM Ronny Pfannschmidt < opensource@ronnypfannschmidt.de> wrote:
i think its a good idea to have this as a opt-in.
Currently a Fair Share Mechanism on a opt in basis seems fair, if we ever hit a situation where someone could have a reasonably set up part/full-time position primarily on pytest we should take a look at how division is fair in that case.
Agreed, thanks Ronny. If nobody objects, I plan to move this forward later this week. One question is how do we track which maintainers are opting to receive funding. I'm thinking of opening an issue which lists the contributors receiving the funding; maintainers are then free to post a comment indicating if they want to start/stop receiving funding, at which point we update the original post. Another option would be to use the Wiki, but we don't receive change notifications so there's a chance of we getting out of sync with the configuration on Tidelift. Suggestions? Another question is regarding admins of the Tidelift dashboard. I volunteer to do it, but would like more people to also be admins to reduce the bus factor, so other volunteers are appreciated as well. Cheers, Bruno.
-- Ronny
Am 03.05.19 um 14:11 schrieb Bruno Oliveira:
Hi Floris,
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:25 PM Floris Bruynooghe <flub@devork.be> wrote:
Why the rules about active? Seems complicated and more open to arguing. I liked the Pillow guidelines you linked: https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/contributors can express interest and https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/core decides on split (which I guess can be anything from 0% to 100%). With the same assumption that the core members are reasonable that should end up as roughly the same.
Mind you in practice I have no issue with the above proposal of people right now, but would also not mind if e.g. hpk or ronny wanted to be part right now (I'll pass myself). Likewise there are probably cases where I wouldn't mind people not in core being paid for some time.
I wrote those "rules" just to come up with a solid proposal in the e-mail, but I do like yours better. Letting developers opt-in to a share is fair and reasonable, certainly.
I think we should even always split the funding evenly between those opting to receive it, to further avoid any arguing on that.
But in general I'm +1, let's make it happen if there's anyone interested
in getting paid.
Great, let's see what others think.
Cheers, Bruno.
_______________________________________________ pytest-dev mailing listpytest-dev@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
Am 06.05.19 um 16:03 schrieb Bruno Oliveira:
Hi Ronny,
On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 11:09 AM Ronny Pfannschmidt <opensource@ronnypfannschmidt.de <mailto:opensource@ronnypfannschmidt.de>> wrote:
i think its a good idea to have this as a opt-in.
Currently a Fair Share Mechanism on a opt in basis seems fair, if we ever hit a situation where someone could have a reasonably set up part/full-time position primarily on pytest we should take a look at how division is fair in that case.
Agreed, thanks Ronny.
If nobody objects, I plan to move this forward later this week.
One question is how do we track which maintainers are opting to receive funding.
I'm thinking of opening an issue which lists the contributors receiving the funding; maintainers are then free to post a comment indicating if they want to start/stop receiving funding, at which point we update the original post. Another option would be to use the Wiki, but we don't receive change notifications so there's a chance of we getting out of sync with the configuration on Tidelift. Suggestions?
we should make a git repo where we track meta level documentation, that way we chould have a ci with credentials run the checks i wonder if tidelift hasn an api published for that
Another question is regarding admins of the Tidelift dashboard. I volunteer to do it, but would like more people to also be admins to reduce the bus factor, so other volunteers are appreciated as well.
in about 2-3 Months i can Commit to such role as well. Cheers Ronny
Cheers, Bruno.
-- Ronny
Am 03.05.19 um 14:11 schrieb Bruno Oliveira:
Hi Floris,
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:25 PM Floris Bruynooghe <flub@devork.be <mailto:flub@devork.be>> wrote:
Why the rules about active? Seems complicated and more open to arguing. I liked the Pillow guidelines you linked: https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/contributors can express interest and https://github.com/orgs/pytest-dev/teams/core decides on split (which I guess can be anything from 0% to 100%). With the same assumption that the core members are reasonable that should end up as roughly the same.
Mind you in practice I have no issue with the above proposal of people right now, but would also not mind if e.g. hpk or ronny wanted to be part right now (I'll pass myself). Likewise there are probably cases where I wouldn't mind people not in core being paid for some time.
I wrote those "rules" just to come up with a solid proposal in the e-mail, but I do like yours better. Letting developers opt-in to a share is fair and reasonable, certainly.
I think we should even always split the funding evenly between those opting to receive it, to further avoid any arguing on that.
But in general I'm +1, let's make it happen if there's anyone interested in getting paid.
Great, let's see what others think.
Cheers, Bruno.
_______________________________________________ pytest-dev mailing list pytest-dev@python.org <mailto:pytest-dev@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
On Mon 06 May 2019 at 23:58 +0200, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
Am 06.05.19 um 16:03 schrieb Bruno Oliveira:
Hi Ronny,
On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 11:09 AM Ronny Pfannschmidt <opensource@ronnypfannschmidt.de <mailto:opensource@ronnypfannschmidt.de>> wrote:
i think its a good idea to have this as a opt-in.
Currently a Fair Share Mechanism on a opt in basis seems fair, if we ever hit a situation where someone could have a reasonably set up part/full-time position primarily on pytest we should take a look at how division is fair in that case.
Agreed, thanks Ronny.
If nobody objects, I plan to move this forward later this week.
One question is how do we track which maintainers are opting to receive funding.
I'm thinking of opening an issue which lists the contributors receiving the funding; maintainers are then free to post a comment indicating if they want to start/stop receiving funding, at which point we update the original post. Another option would be to use the Wiki, but we don't receive change notifications so there's a chance of we getting out of sync with the configuration on Tidelift. Suggestions?
we should make a git repo where we track meta level documentation, that way we chould have a ci with credentials run the checks
+1 to tracking this in a text file in a vcs repo.
i wonder if tidelift hasn an api published for that
Another question is regarding admins of the Tidelift dashboard. I volunteer to do it, but would like more people to also be admins to reduce the bus factor, so other volunteers are appreciated as well.
in about 2-3 Months i can Commit to such role as well.
If there's no need for the admins to also be paid I'm happy to help the bus factor there too. Cheers, Floris
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 3:20 PM Floris Bruynooghe <flub@devork.be> wrote:
On Mon 06 May 2019 at 23:58 +0200, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
we should make a git repo where we track meta level documentation, that way we chould have a ci with credentials run the checks
+1 to tracking this in a text file in a vcs repo.
Indeed, that's a good idea: we have a formal process already in place to add/remove lifters, PRs. :) Any objections to a `Tidelift.md` in pytest's own repository? A separate repository for now seems overkill. The file should also contain instructions about the steps required to start receiving funds.
i wonder if tidelift hasn an api published for that
Another question is regarding admins of the Tidelift dashboard. I volunteer to do it, but would like more people to also be admins to reduce the bus factor, so other volunteers are appreciated as well.
in about 2-3 Months i can Commit to such role as well.
If there's no need for the admins to also be paid I'm happy to help the bus factor there too.
Sure, thanks Floris! Cheers, Bruno
Cheers, Floris
On Tue 07 May 2019 at 15:36 -0300, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 3:20 PM Floris Bruynooghe <flub@devork.be> wrote:
On Mon 06 May 2019 at 23:58 +0200, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
we should make a git repo where we track meta level documentation, that way we chould have a ci with credentials run the checks
+1 to tracking this in a text file in a vcs repo.
Indeed, that's a good idea: we have a formal process already in place to add/remove lifters, PRs. :)
Any objections to a `Tidelift.md` in pytest's own repository? A separate repository for now seems overkill.
I'd bikeshed the choice of capitalisation but otherwise that seems fine to me. ;) It can be split off once there's too many meta things in the repo.
The file should also contain instructions about the steps required to start receiving funds.
Good idea, the more transparency the better. Cheers, Floris
On 07.05.19 20:52, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
we should make a git repo where we track meta level documentation, that way we chould have a ci with credentials run the checks
+1 to tracking this in a text file in a vcs repo.
Indeed, that's a good idea: we have a formal process already in place to add/remove lifters, PRs. :)
Any objections to a `Tidelift.md` in pytest's own repository? A separate repository for now seems overkill.
I'd bikeshed the choice of capitalisation but otherwise that seems fine to me. ;) It can be split off once there's too many meta things in the repo.
The file should also contain instructions about the steps required to start receiving funds.
I think a new repository like pytest-meta, or pytest-org makes sense - it is easy to setup in general, and keeps away noise from the main repo. We could create some issue in the main repo to link to it for transparency. But maybe just having an issue for it in the (main) repo is enough already: you get notifications, it can be edited etc. Cheers, Daniel.
Hey Daniel, On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 5:57 AM Daniel Hahler <genml+pytest-dev@thequod.de> wrote:
I think a new repository like pytest-meta, or pytest-org makes sense - it is easy to setup in general, and keeps away noise from the main repo.
We could create some issue in the main repo to link to it for transparency.
But maybe just having an issue for it in the (main) repo is enough already: you get notifications, it can be edited etc.
I think the plan for now is to just have a TIDELIFT.rst (wink Floris) on the main repository with instructions, and the maintainers interested in receiving funds. To update the document we use standard PRs. I believe this will fit for now, but if we find it lacking we can easily move to a separate repository for sure. About automation, they have a simple API for posting new CHANGELOGs: https://tidelift.com/docs/api, so that can be definitely automated. Cheers, Bruno.
Hi everyone, I've registered pytest with Tidelift, so it is now officially part of the platform: https://tidelift.com/subscription/pkg/pypi-pytest I've opened a PR documenting what we've discussed here: https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/pull/5240 Any suggestions are very welcome! Cheers, On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 8:05 AM Bruno Oliveira <nicoddemus@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Daniel,
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 5:57 AM Daniel Hahler <genml+pytest-dev@thequod.de> wrote:
I think a new repository like pytest-meta, or pytest-org makes sense - it is easy to setup in general, and keeps away noise from the main repo.
We could create some issue in the main repo to link to it for transparency.
But maybe just having an issue for it in the (main) repo is enough already: you get notifications, it can be edited etc.
I think the plan for now is to just have a TIDELIFT.rst (wink Floris) on the main repository with instructions, and the maintainers interested in receiving funds. To update the document we use standard PRs. I believe this will fit for now, but if we find it lacking we can easily move to a separate repository for sure.
About automation, they have a simple API for posting new CHANGELOGs: https://tidelift.com/docs/api, so that can be definitely automated.
Cheers, Bruno.
Hi, It looks like there are a few more repos that could be claimed as well: https://tidelift.com/lifter/search/pypi/pytest-xdist https://tidelift.com/lifter/search/pypi/pytest-cov https://tidelift.com/lifter/search/pypi/pluggy https://tidelift.com/lifter/search/pypi/py etc. cheers Brianna On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 08:20, Bruno Oliveira <nicoddemus@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've registered pytest with Tidelift, so it is now officially part of the platform: https://tidelift.com/subscription/pkg/pypi-pytest
I've opened a PR documenting what we've discussed here:
https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/pull/5240
Any suggestions are very welcome!
Cheers,
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 8:05 AM Bruno Oliveira <nicoddemus@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Daniel,
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 5:57 AM Daniel Hahler <genml+pytest-dev@thequod.de> wrote:
I think a new repository like pytest-meta, or pytest-org makes sense - it is easy to setup in general, and keeps away noise from the main repo.
We could create some issue in the main repo to link to it for transparency.
But maybe just having an issue for it in the (main) repo is enough already: you get notifications, it can be edited etc.
I think the plan for now is to just have a TIDELIFT.rst (wink Floris) on the main repository with instructions, and the maintainers interested in receiving funds. To update the document we use standard PRs. I believe this will fit for now, but if we find it lacking we can easily move to a separate repository for sure.
About automation, they have a simple API for posting new CHANGELOGs: https://tidelift.com/docs/api, so that can be definitely automated.
Cheers, Bruno.
_______________________________________________ pytest-dev mailing list pytest-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
participants (6)
-
Brianna Laugher -
Bruno Oliveira -
Daniel Hahler -
Florian Bruhin -
Floris Bruynooghe -
Ronny Pfannschmidt