IMO the text of PEP 581 could use some improvements to capture more of the debate. For example: - If people want to submit PRs to the peps repo that correct *factual* mistakes in PEP 581, they're welcome to (and I will personally see that they will be merged). For example, IIRC you *can* reply to a bpo issue via email, so that bullet should probably be struck. - If someone wants to volunteer a PR to the peps repo that adds a list of objections against the move, e.g. losing certain bpo capabilities, or specific undesirable behaviors or properties of GitHub, that will also be entertained (but be reasonable). But trust me that the SC didn't take this decision lightly. It was unanimous, and we have all thought about this a great deal (and listened to long arguments pro and con). It's also impossible to satisfy everyone -- some people find GitHub unacceptable (I've heard about 1-2 people who refused to create GitHub accounts), but others find bpo unusable (the need to have a bpo account in order to accept the CLA has been brought up repeatedly). A successful migration will take a lot of work, and PEP 588 is where we keep track of tasks to be accomplished. (There are more that haven't made it to that PEP, e.g. the mechanics of the actual move.) We're also hoping to get professional help managing the migration so that not everything relies on volunteers. (Speaking of relying on volunteers, if you haven't seen Russel Keith-Magee's keynote at the most recent PyCon US, please watch it. It is an amazing thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftP5BQh1-YM -- start at 21:00 to skip the conference opening remarks.) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him/his **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-c...>