The update aims to address both of those observations.

For the first one, I changed the wording of both the overall page and the guidelines for making new entries to say that "I work for <company> in <country/continent>" is still useful information to share if folks are comfortable doing so.

So, if you work for a CPython redistributor, or a large corporate or institutional user of CPython, and are willing to share that info, I encourage you to clone the devguide repo and update the revised page.

The reason for that is that professional affiliations give both the PSF and other organisations with a vested interest in CPython's future a better sense of:

- the diversity of use cases encountered directly by current core developers

- the diversity of funding supporting the availability of current core developers (as even when employers aren't funding contributions directly, it's our paid work and other sources of income that provide us with the free time needed for volunteer work like contributing to CPython ourselves, as well as mentoring other contributors)

The request for regional information primarily relates to the "diversity of use cases" representation question - the world's a complex place, and there's no substitute for actually living and working in a region when it comes to understanding the needs and interests of that region.

For the second one, while I do still consider this page part of an experiment, the page itself isn't likely to go away at this point. Instead, I consider the experiment to be a larger one around open source supply chain management and what happens if you take sustaining engineering information for a project that could (at least in theory) be obtained by mining publicly available information, and instead ask contributors if they're willing to explicitly volunteer that data in a central location.

Regards,

Nick.

--