On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 13:29, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:43:04AM -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:

> PyPI makes getting more algorithms easy.

Can we please stop over-generalising like this? PyPI makes getting
more algorithms easy for *SOME* people. (Sorry for shouting, but you
just pressed one of my buttons.)

Is shouting necessary to begin with, though? I understand people relying on PyPI more and more can be troublesome for some and a sticking point, but if you know it's a trigger for you then waiting until you didn't feel like shouting seems like a reasonable course of action while still getting your point across.

PyPI might as well not exist for those who cannot, for technical or
policy reasons, install addition software beyond the std lib on the
computers they use. (I hesitate to say "their computers".)

In many school or corporate networks, installing unapproved software can
get you expelled or fired. And getting approval may be effectively
impossible, or take months of considerable effort navigating some
complex bureaucratic process.

This is not an argument either for or against adding LZ4, I have no
opinion either way.
But it is a reminder that "just get it from PyPI"
represents an extremely privileged position that not all Python users
are capable of taking, and we shouldn't be so blase about abandoning
those who can't to future std lib improvements.

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).