On 23 Jul 2015 01:36, "Nikolaus Rath" Nikolaus@rath.org wrote:
On Jul 22 2015, Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 22 July 2015 at 13:23, Nikolaus Rath Nikolaus@rath.org wrote:
If it were up to me, I'd focus all the resources of the PSF on reducing this backlog - be that by hiring some core developers to work full-time on just the open bugtracker issues, or by financing development of better code review and commit infrastructure.
Ah, but the PSF can't do that without infringing on python-dev's autonomy - switching to my PSF Director's hat, while we'd certainly be prepared to help with funding a credible grant proposal for something like the Twisted technical fellowship, we wouldn't *impose* help that the core developers haven't asked for.
I don't understand. If I would hire a core developer myself to work on this (theoretically, I have no plans to do that), would that also be infringing python-dev's authority? If so, how is that different from me doing the work? If not, why is it different if the PSF decides to hire someone?
When somebody else pays someone to work on core development, it's quite clear that that's a private employment matter between that developer and whoever hires them.
By contrast, the PSF also has to consider the potential impact on motivation levels for all the current volunteers we *don't* hire, as well as ensuring that expectations are appropriately aligned between everyone involved in the process. I think that's more likely to work out well for all concerned if the process of requesting paid help in keeping the issue tracker backlog under control is initiated *from* the core development community, rather than being externally initiated by the PSF Board.
The current situation looks like a downward spiral to me. New contributors are frustrated and leave because they feel their contribution is not welcome, and core developers get burned out by the gigantic backlog and the interaction with frustrated patch submitters - thus further reducing the available manpower.
We actually still have a lot of paid core developer (and potential core developer) time locked up in facilitating the Python 2 -> 3 migration, as we didn't fully appreciate the extent to which Python had been adopted in the Linux ecosystem and elsewhere until folks started seeking help upgrading.
Interesting. Is this information available publically somewhere? I'm curious what exactly is being worked on.
There are a couple of links for Ubuntu & Fedora porting status at https://wiki.python.org/moin/Python3LinuxDistroPortingStatus
Canonical & Red Hat between them have several people working on that, and upgrades for a large proportion of the enterprise Linux world are gated behind that effort.
The PyCon US sponsor list then provides a decent hint as to the scale of what's needing to be ported behind corporate firewalls: https://us.pycon.org/2015/sponsors/
It definitely qualifies as interesting times :)