On 23 Jul 2015 01:36, "Nikolaus Rath" <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:
> On Jul 22 2015, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> 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 :)