On 20 Sep 2015 00:02, "Antoine Pitrou" <antoine@python.org> wrote:
> It doesn't sound like the devguide is ideally the right place for it.
> Actually, for a guide devoted to attract new contributors, saying "hey,
> we'd really like you to contribute on a volunteer basis, but here is a
> list of people who prefer being paid to do the same thing" may send the
> wrong message.

Yeah, part of this would involve emphasising that the main thing being prioritised commercially is writing & reviewing changes on behalf of *other people* - I consider that a distinct pool of time from the time we contribute because we find contributing to be an inherently rewarding activity.

That said, one of the problems faced by folks that *do* have permission to spend work time on contributing to CPython, but aren't yet core contributors themselves, is that their employer may not currently have a way to ensure they're mentored appropriately.

Just as happens with volunteers looking to contribute on their own time, it's a problem for us as a community when someone has successfully made the case to their employer that a fix or improvement should be contributed back upstream on work time, only to see it languish on the tracker.

While I don't think it's reasonable to ask volunteers to prioritise reviewing commercially developed contributions, I do think it's reasonable to facilitate folks getting paid to mentor potential future contributors and build direct relationships with organisations willing to pay people to work on CPython.

> I also understand the pragmatic side of the proposal, which is that the
> devguide has an established development and contribution process where
> it is easy to propose changes and get them discussed and accepted

That's part of it, but I also think we (as in those of us with commit privileges that are also professional developers) bear the responsibility for deciding how transparent we want to be about the commercial aspects of the development process that have emerged over time, rather than having that responsibility fall on the PSF.

As a next step, I'll draft a page that lists me (and anyone else that volunteers to be listed) to show a specific proposed structure, and give folks something more concrete to discuss.