Are you also going to stop others from using the psf theme? On May 27, 2017 11:35, "Brett Cannon" <brett@python.org> wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2017 at 21:28 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
Over on https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/ pull/305#issuecomment-304169735 we're looking to update the theming of packaging.python.org to match that of the language documentation at docs.python.org.
Doing that would also entail updating the documentation of the individual tools and services (pip, pypi, setuptools, wheel, etc) to maintain consistency with the main packaging user guide, so Jon has tentatively broken the theme out as a (not yet published anywhere) "pypa-theme" package to make it easier to re-use across multiple projects.
The question that occurred to me is whether or not it might make more sense to instead call that package "psf-docs-theme", to reflect that it's intended specifically for projects that are legally backed by the PSF, and that general Python projects looking for a nice, high-contrast, theme should consider using an org independent one like Alabaster instead.
Thoughts? Should we stick with pypa-theme as the name? Switch to psf-docs-theme? Publish both, with pypa-theme adding PyPA specific elements to a more general psf-docs-theme?
If we're going to share the theme beyond docs.python.org it makes sense to have a shared theme under the Python org that can easily be reused by multiple sets of documentation.
As for the name, the psf-docs-theme seems fine with me.
-Brett
Cheers, Nick.
P.S. In case folks aren't aware of the full legal arrangements here: in addition to the informal "Python Packaging Authority" designation, there's also a formally constituted PSF Packaging Working Group that provides the legal connection back to the PSF. That means the relationship between PyPA and the PSF ends up being pretty similar to the one between python-dev and the PSF, where there's no direct PSF involvement in day to day development activities, but the PSF provides the legal and financial backing needed to sustainably maintain popular community-supported software and services.
Part of my rationale for suggesting the inclusion of "psf" in the package name is to make it clear that the intent would be to create a clear and distinctive "trade dress" for the documentation of directly PSF backed projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress#Protection_for_ electronic_interfaces_and_websites
Future requests to use the theme (beyond CPython and the PyPA) could then be run through the PSF Trademarks committee, as with requests to use the registered marks.
Whereas if we go with pypa-theme, then that would just be a non-precedent-setting agreement between PyPA and CPython to share a documentation theme, without trying to define any form of documentation trade dress for the PSF in general.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ brett%40python.org
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ guido%40python.org