On 3/24/2014 7:04 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Mar 24, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <firstname.lastname@example.org mailto:email@example.com> wrote:
Beyond that, PEP 462 covers another way for corporate users to give back - if they want to build massive commercial enterprises on our software, they can help maintain and upgrade the infrastructure that makes it possible in the first place.
It's potentially worth reading some of the board candidate statements for this year, particularly mine and Van's:
I read all of them.
The lack of paid development time for CPython compared to similarly critical projects like the Linux kernel and OpenStack is of grave concern to me personally from a volunteer burnout perspective,
I am glad to read that. Some of the expert professional core developers scoff at me being burned out from News Merge Hell and push race losses.
and it was a problem at least Van and I were already specifically wanting to address over the next year or so. Over the course of writing the PEP I realised that the situation with the Python 2 network security modules is a perfect example of the kinds of problems that the current lack of upstream engagement and investment can cause.
I'd like to just go on a brief tangent here.
While I totally agree that it would be incredibly awesome if more companies put dedicated time into developing and maintaining CPython I don't think pushing all the blame on to them is accurate.
For all I know, PSF has not yet asked in the right way, whatever that would be.
will be better) but I think it is not doing anyone a favor if we just point fingers *over there* and claim the fault lies with someone else doing or not doing something.
I agree that we should better figure out what to go going forward.
I *don't* want to disparage anyone or anything of that like, mostly to say that while of course increased resources from corporate users would help the situation immensely but that additionally there is a reasonably sized contingent of influential members who still want to treat Python as a hobbyist project and not a critical piece of the infrastructure of the Internet as a whole.
I find that surprising as I do not personally know any such people. To me, Python is both. My only objection is to corporatists who want to exclude amateur and hobbyist projects, for instance from PyPI (which I believe started as a hobbyist project).
I personally would like someone paid full-time to upgrade the commit infrastructure, as soon possible. to make current committers more productive and make becoming a committer more attractive. Then I would like 2 people paid, one for doc issues, one to code, to work on the backlog of contributed patches. I know that are people who are not contributing any more because their previous contributions have sat unattended to.
I *don't* want to get help from downstream users, especially on important but "boring" or hard issues such as security, and then have them feel shutdown and unable to actually get anything done as others who have attempted to resolve some of these issues in the past have had happen to them.
Just from reading pydev, I am not familiar with such events and cannot comment.