On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:52:29 +0000 Paul Moore email@example.com wrote:
[This is getting off-topic, so I'll limit my comments to this one email]
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 03:17, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
We have never really had a discussion about how we want to guide the stdlib going forward (e.g. how much does PyPI influence things, focus/theme, etc.). Maybe we should consider finally having that discussion once the governance model is chosen and before we consider adding a new module as things like people's inability to access PyPI come up pretty consistently (e.g. I know Paul Moore also brings this up regularly).
I'm not sure a formal discussion on this matter will help much - my feeling is that most people have relatively fixed views on how they would like things to go (large stdlib/batteries included vs external modules/PyPI/slim stdlib). The "problem" isn't so much with people having different views (as a group, we're pretty good at achieving workable compromises in the face of differing views) as it is about people forgetting that their experience isn't the only reality, which causes unnecessary frustration in discussions. That's more of a people problem than a technical one.
I'd like to point the discussion is asymmetric here.
On the one hand, people who don't have access to PyPI would _really_ benefit from a larger stdlib with more batteries included.
On the other hand, people who have access to PyPI _don't_ benefit from having a slim stdlib. There's nothing virtuous or advantageous about having _less_ batteries included. Python doesn't become magically faster or more powerful by including less in its standard distribution: the best it does is make the distribution slightly smaller.
So there's really one bunch of people arguing for practical benefits, and another bunch of people arguing for mostly aesthetical or philosophical reasons.