[This is getting off-topic, so I'll limit my comments to this one email]
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 03:17, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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).
I'm not sure a formal discussion on this matter will help much - my feeling is that most people have relatively fixed views on how they would like things to go (large stdlib/batteries included vs external modules/PyPI/slim stdlib). The "problem" isn't so much with people having different views (as a group, we're pretty good at achieving workable compromises in the face of differing views) as it is about people forgetting that their experience isn't the only reality, which causes unnecessary frustration in discussions. That's more of a people problem than a technical one.
What would be nice would be if we could persuade people *not* to assume "adding an external dependency is easy" in all cases, and frame their arguments in a way that doesn't make that mistaken assumption. The arguments/debates are fine, what's not so fine is having to repeatedly explain how people are making fundamentally unsound assumptions. Having said that, what *is* difficult to know, is how *many* people are in situations where adding an external dependency is hard, and how hard it is in practice. The sorts of environment where PyPI access is hard are also the sorts of environment where participation in open source discussions is rare, so getting good information is hard.