Okay so I just code a little bit and I used the multiprocessing module but my code didn't work and I found the solution on Stack Overflow and it turned out to be not my mistake (which has never happened before I think). Instead I found out it's a bug in Python and the issue on Github was linked so I opened it and I was surprised to see what's going on "behind the scenes". Yes I have basically no experience in maintaining any big project. So when you're saying "You don't know what it's like and therefore your complaint doesn't make sense" then you're not wrong and I just have to believe you. But I think this is a dangerous argument because it could also be used to shut up anything and anybody. (I'm not saying this is the case here.) Therefore, this argument should rarely be used in my opinion. From an outsider's perspective it just looks really weird that a bugfix from 2017 hasn't become a priority to get merged, like the process is flawed. That's all. I didn't mean to attack any one of you. I want to make that clear because it feels like some of you got kinda defensive about it. "There's been quite a bit of discussion on both of them" - None of the discussions left any questions unanswered. Except for the question of when the pull request will get merged. "Merging something is also a responsibility to whoever does it" - And it's also a responsibility to fix bugs, no? I don't get why you're so afraid of (maybe!) introducing a new bug when there already (certainly!) is a bug. "Oops. I'm really sorry for giving false hopes, then, because I don't think I'm motivated to review this PR. I'm not really maintaining multiprocessing these days, anymore" - No worries dude. This not about one person or one bug. I'm sorry that the issue that I stumbled upon turned out to be one where you said you'd put it on your list. "What if that one line change is even more wrong than before?" - Yes of course there's a risk. Just like there was a risk when you merged the original code which contained the bug, right?! At some point you have to say yes that looks okay let's merge it, even though there is a slight chance it could contain a mistake. And it is not obvious to me (and many other people who commented in those github threads) what else would possibly be needed. After all, there are currently actual people who are affected by the bug - and you're only talking about hypothetical people being affected by a possibly wrong bugfix. "When I got the shutil.which feature merged, the PR had been open for I believe 11 years" - Totally different topic. I explicitly said in my initial message, that I'm talking about a bugfix, not a new feature. "If you would like more value out of it or to speed up the process, you can provide your own reviews." - Seriously? I can't help but feel like that comment sounds kinda arrogant. I hope I'm misunderstanding you. Look at that link and Stack Overflow post again how many people commented and voted that the patch fixed their issues. How many more people do you want? "*maintainer attention* is actually the scarcest resource in many open source projects, and Python is no exception." - Then get more people to do this? Don't tell me Python isn't big enough to find some companies or funds to sponsor a few people to work the dreaded reviewer job a few hours a week? Or let more amateur coders review and have a core reviewer review their reviews? I totally get the point that reviewers are a scarce resource. But I do not get the point why you're not changing that. "almost by definition, ANY regression is worse than any bug that still exists today" - Yeah I get this point and I think I agree. But it's more about risk evaluation. Because if there is absolutely no willingness to risk mistakenly introducing a regression then you're effectively at a standstill. You can never merge anything again because it might affect the code base in a way you hadn't foreseen. So you need to take some risks. "Most stdlib modules have no maintainer and past maintainers are gone for a long time." - I'm flabbergasted. I don't know what to say. Can't you not see how bad that is?! "As specifically to the flaws in our workflow and the backlog, this is exactly what the was designed to address" - To end on a positive note: The Developer-in-Residence program sounds like a really good idea. And I love Python and appreciate all the work that went into it and I really hope all of you believe me when I say this despite me internet rando pooping on your review process. <3