On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:27:27 +0200 Baptiste Carvello wrote:

Hi,

Le 21/06/2021 à 04:20, Ezio Melotti a écrit :

...

This effort is being tracked at https://github.com/psf/gh-migration/projects/1: this board reflects the current status of the project. The PEPs (including PEP 588 -- GitHub Issues Migration Plan) haven't been updated yet and might contain outdated information, so please refer to the psf/gh-migration repo for the latest updates.

since 2019, I've been waiting for proposed solutions to PEP 588's first open issue ("A GitHub account should not be a requirement"). Now would be the time to think about it, but I see no such reflection mentioned in the repo.

It's extremely unlikely that Github would allow participating on the issue tracker without requiring a Github account, even if Python asks for it. Regards Antoine.

Hi, Le 21/06/2021 à 13:48, Victor Stinner a écrit :

Hi,

As a bug triager, it's very frustrating when I ask for more information about a bug, and I get no reply. Usually, such bug is closed as "out of date" (lack enough information to be debugged).

There seems to be an untold assumption that non-github-users are more likely to not reply to their own bugs. Not sure why, I may lack context.

The requirement for a GitHub account was well known when PEP 581 was accepted. The PEP was approved. It's now time to move on!

PEP 588 has been saying the exact opposite for 2 years (maybe they did not really mean it, but that's what's written).

[...]

It's all about trade-offs. Don't under estimate the cost of operating our own bug tracker. System administration is not free.

Note, however, that requiring a github account for reporting bugs is a whole different trade-off than requiring it for development. The second makes python an unwelcoming project for privacy-conscious people, but I understand that such is the price to pay for more efficient freeware tools. And it's an already made choice anyway. By contrast, requiring a github account for reporting bugs also makes python an unwelcoming place for non-developers in general. Github is a developers' social network, "mere" users are much less likely to want to be part of it. Many will just silently abandon their bug report. Cheers, Baptiste

Victor

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:46 AM Baptiste Carvello wrote:

...

Hi,

Le 21/06/2021 à 04:20, Ezio Melotti a écrit :

...

This effort is being tracked at https://github.com/psf/gh-migration/projects/1: this board reflects the current status of the project. The PEPs (including PEP 588 -- GitHub Issues Migration Plan) haven't been updated yet and might contain outdated information, so please refer to the psf/gh-migration repo for the latest updates.

since 2019, I've been waiting for proposed solutions to PEP 588's first open issue ("A GitHub account should not be a requirement"). Now would be the time to think about it, but I see no such reflection mentioned in the repo.

Cheers, Baptiste _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/2GJQKB27... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

By contrast, requiring a github account for reporting bugs also makes python an unwelcoming place for non-developers in general. Github is a developers' social network, "mere" users are much less likely to want to be part of it. Many will just silently abandon their bug report.

But you don’t need to be “part of it” in any meaningful way. One only needs to create an account, which could be quite anonymous, and even temporary. And is no harder, and probably easier, than creating an account on a Python-specific site. Also: cPython is a large, complex, and mature project. I don't think many non-developers can even identify a true bug, much less write a helpful big report. There are many other ways to be involved in and contribute to the Python community that don't require a gitHub (or any) account. I understand the issue here — I feel that way about businesses that use Facebook for their website. But in that case, I can’t even read it without a Facebook account. I don’t mind needing an account to contribute to a conversation. And while GitHub has become the dominant player in Open Source development— it has not (yet?) reached out to control much else. -CHB

Cheers, Baptiste

...

Victor

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:46 AM Baptiste Carvello wrote:

...

Hi,

Le 21/06/2021 à 04:20, Ezio Melotti a écrit :

...

This effort is being tracked at https://github.com/psf/gh-migration/projects/1: this board reflects the current status of the project. The PEPs (including PEP 588 -- GitHub Issues Migration Plan) haven't been updated yet and might contain outdated information, so please refer to the psf/gh-migration repo for the latest updates.

since 2019, I've been waiting for proposed solutions to PEP 588's first open issue ("A GitHub account should not be a requirement"). Now would be the time to think about it, but I see no such reflection mentioned in the repo.

Cheers, Baptiste _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at

https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/2GJQKB27...

...

...

Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ETQO4M3I... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Hi, On Mon 21 Jun, 13:48 +0200, Victor Stinner wrote:

The requirement for a GitHub account was well known when PEP 581 was accepted. The PEP was approved. It's now time to move on!

I think it is important to notice that GitHub actively blocks user registration and activity from countries that are sanctioned by the US government. At least in 2019 GitHub was blocking users from IPs located in Cuba, North Corea, Syria, Crimea, Iran, etc (see for example [1]). They block, of course, users of any nationality, if they happen to be traveling or living in those countries. I could not find any clear official statement from GitHub, but I think this is something to consider nonetheless, especially now that the Python community is making great efforts to become more welcoming and diverse. The fact of excluding a significant part of the potential contributors based on a random list by a random government over which the Python community as a whole has no influence whatsoever seems a move in the wrong direction. My 2c, Tiziano [1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/29/github-ban-sanctioned-countries/

Am 22.06.21 um 10:00 schrieb Tiziano Zito:

I think it is important to notice that GitHub actively blocks user registration and activity from countries that are sanctioned by the US government. At least in 2019 GitHub was blocking users from IPs located in Cuba, North Corea, Syria, Crimea, Iran, etc (see for example [1]). They block, of course, users of any nationality, if they happen to be traveling or living in those countries.

I could not find any clear official statement from GitHub, but I think this is something to consider nonetheless, especially now that the Python community is making great efforts to become more welcoming and diverse. The fact of excluding a significant part of the potential contributors based on a random list by a random government over which the Python community as a whole has no influence whatsoever seems a move in the wrong direction.

I was overall in favor of moving Python issues over to GitHub, for convenience, easier access, and a more usable interface. But I think the issue above is a showstopper. This problem of course already exists for pull requests, but discriminating against users based on their place of residence is absolutely unacceptable to me. In fact, it is directly in violation to the PSF's mission statement that says in part: "... to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers." This issue hasn't been addresses in PEP 581, so I believe it wasn't considered when accepting the PEP. But it's serious enough that I would like to ask the steering council to reconsider their decision to accept PEP 581.  - Sebastian

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 4:42 AM Sebastian Rittau wrote:

Am 22.06.21 um 10:00 schrieb Tiziano Zito:

...

I think it is important to notice that GitHub actively blocks user registration and activity from countries that are sanctioned by the US government. At least in 2019 GitHub was blocking users from IPs located in Cuba, North Corea, Syria, Crimea, Iran, etc (see for example [1]). They block, of course, users of any nationality, if they happen to be traveling or living in those countries.

I could not find any clear official statement from GitHub, but I think this is something to consider nonetheless, especially now that the Python community is making great efforts to become more welcoming and diverse. The fact of excluding a significant part of the potential contributors based on a random list by a random government over which the Python community as a whole has no influence whatsoever seems a move in the wrong direction.

I was overall in favor of moving Python issues over to GitHub, for convenience, easier access, and a more usable interface. But I think the issue above is a showstopper. This problem of course already exists for pull requests, but discriminating against users based on their place of residence is absolutely unacceptable to me. In fact, it is directly in violation to the PSF's mission statement that says in part: "... to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers." This issue hasn't been addresses in PEP 581, so I believe it wasn't considered when accepting the PEP. But it's serious enough that I would like to ask the steering council to reconsider their decision to accept PEP 581.

As much as we might wish otherwise, the PSF is also a US entity and has to comply with US laws. GitHub's official policy at https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-and-trade-controls gives the impression that they're reading the law as narrowly as possible, and allowing access to every person that they legally can. In particular, that policy page claims that there are no restrictions on users from Cuba or Iran, and that users from Syria and Crimea are allowed to participate in OSS projects, just not give GitHub money. (They do disallow use by North Koreans and "Specially Designated Nationals".) It is even possible for the PSF to do better without breaking the law? I'm not an expert in this area at all, so happy to be educated if so... -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org

(For some weird reason, I didn't get this mail via the list, only the private copy, so I might break threading by replying via my private copy.) Am 22.06.21 um 14:01 schrieb Nathaniel Smith:

As much as we might wish otherwise, the PSF is also a US entity and has to comply with US laws. GitHub's official policy at

https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-and-trade-controls

gives the impression that they're reading the law as narrowly as possible, and allowing access to every person that they legally can. In particular, that policy page claims that there are no restrictions on users from Cuba or Iran, and that users from Syria and Crimea are allowed to participate in OSS projects, just not give GitHub money. (They do disallow use by North Koreans and "Specially Designated Nationals".)

It is even possible for the PSF to do better without breaking the law? I'm not an expert in this area at all, so happy to be educated if so...

-n

I'm not much interested in theory. Are people currently blocked from participating in Python issues due to their country of residence? Will people be blocked after the move to GitHub? If the answer to the second question is "yes", the move would violate one of the core principles of the PSF. If the answer to the first question is "yes", we need to consider transferring the bug tracker to an organization in a country whose laws better align with the goals of the PSF.  - Sebastian

This is perhaps a different issue, but perhaps not. PSF grants are also subject to absurd and convoluted (and difficult to interpret) "export control" rules. Also rules subject to change at any moment at the whims of the latest US government grandstanding. USA incorporation definitely has drawbacks, as well as advantages. On Tue, Jun 22, 2021, 7:46 AM Sebastian Rittau wrote:

Am 22.06.21 um 10:00 schrieb Tiziano Zito:

...

I think it is important to notice that GitHub actively blocks user registration and activity from countries that are sanctioned by the US government. At least in 2019 GitHub was blocking users from IPs located in Cuba, North Corea, Syria, Crimea, Iran, etc (see for example [1]). They block, of course, users of any nationality, if they happen to be traveling or living in those countries.

I could not find any clear official statement from GitHub, but I think this is something to consider nonetheless, especially now that the Python community is making great efforts to become more welcoming and diverse. The fact of excluding a significant part of the potential contributors based on a random list by a random government over which the Python community as a whole has no influence whatsoever seems a move in the wrong direction.

I was overall in favor of moving Python issues over to GitHub, for convenience, easier access, and a more usable interface. But I think the issue above is a showstopper. This problem of course already exists for pull requests, but discriminating against users based on their place of residence is absolutely unacceptable to me. In fact, it is directly in violation to the PSF's mission statement that says in part: "... to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers." This issue hasn't been addresses in PEP 581, so I believe it wasn't considered when accepting the PEP. But it's serious enough that I would like to ask the steering council to reconsider their decision to accept PEP 581.

- Sebastian

_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/JWNL7FSD... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

On 6/22/2021 12:52 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Glenn Linderman mailto:v%2Bpython@g.nevcal.com> wrote:

On 6/21/2021 2:31 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:

...

By contrast, requiring a github account for reporting bugs also makes python an unwelcoming place for non-developers in general. Github is a developers' social network, "mere" users are much less likely to want to be part of it. Many will just silently abandon their bug report.

But you don’t need to be “part of it” in any meaningful way. One only needs to create an account, which could be quite anonymous, and even temporary.

And is no harder, and probably easier, than creating an account on a Python-specific site.

Also: cPython is a large, complex, and mature project. I don't think many non-developers can even identify a true bug, much less write a helpful big report. There are many other ways to be involved in and contribute to the Python community that don't require a gitHub (or any) account.

I understand the issue here — I feel that way about businesses that use Facebook for their website. But in that case, I can’t even read it without a Facebook account. I don’t mind needing an account to contribute to a conversation.

And while GitHub  has become the dominant player in Open Source development— it has not (yet?) reached out to control much else.

-CHB

With all due respect to Microsoft, who has contributed significantly to Python development, and continues to do, some people don't care for some of Microsoft's policy and actions, and Microsoft owns GitHub, so your last paragraph is somewhat naive, at best.

So what is the difference between a GitHub account, and Microsoft account?

They are entirely different and separate; there's no relation there at all.

Good, but given the Skype experience, it is questionable how long they will stay that way.

One thing I will remind people is I personally have led the work to move this project from:

1. SourceForge to our own infrastructure 2. Mercurial to git 3. Our own infrastructure to GitHub for code management

So if GitHub were to do something we don't like we can always move platforms again.

Indeed, but platform churn slows contributions, too.

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:22 PM Terry Reedy wrote:

With 2.x gone and a backport flow, essentially all issues are for main, so leave version tags off the issue (and eliminate the need to update them!).

For enhancement requests I agree we probably don't need to keep updating the version (though it might be useful to know which version the user was looking at when coming up with the suggestion). But I think for a bug report it's useful to know the most recent version on which the bug was reproduced. A large part of triage work is to check whether a bug report is still relevant. If you see "version 3.5" then it makes sense to check on a current version and either update the issue or close it.

On Tue., Jun. 22, 2021, 14:50 Glenn Linderman, wrote:

On 6/22/2021 12:52 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Glenn Linderman wrote:

...

On 6/21/2021 2:31 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:

By contrast, requiring a github account for reporting bugs also makes

...

python an unwelcoming place for non-developers in general. Github is a developers' social network, "mere" users are much less likely to want to be part of it. Many will just silently abandon their bug report.

But you don’t need to be “part of it” in any meaningful way. One only needs to create an account, which could be quite anonymous, and even temporary.

And is no harder, and probably easier, than creating an account on a Python-specific site.

Also: cPython is a large, complex, and mature project. I don't think many non-developers can even identify a true bug, much less write a helpful big report. There are many other ways to be involved in and contribute to the Python community that don't require a gitHub (or any) account.

I understand the issue here — I feel that way about businesses that use Facebook for their website. But in that case, I can’t even read it without a Facebook account. I don’t mind needing an account to contribute to a conversation.

And while GitHub has become the dominant player in Open Source development— it has not (yet?) reached out to control much else.

-CHB

With all due respect to Microsoft, who has contributed significantly to Python development, and continues to do, some people don't care for some of Microsoft's policy and actions, and Microsoft owns GitHub, so your last paragraph is somewhat naive, at best.

So what is the difference between a GitHub account, and Microsoft account?

They are entirely different and separate; there's no relation there at all.

Good, but given the Skype experience, it is questionable how long they will stay that way.

You can choose to view that as a one-off or indicative of a pattern. I'm choosing the former (you can use the LinkedIn acquisition as support for my view).

One thing I will remind people is I personally have led the work to move this project from:

1. SourceForge to our own infrastructure 2. Mercurial to git 3. Our own infrastructure to GitHub for code management

So if GitHub were to do something we don't like we can always move platforms again.

Indeed, but platform churn slows contributions, too.

Sure, but I don't think anyone is about to argue we should have stayed on SF. Nor are there plans to switch off of GitHub. Regardless, there are no plans to halt what was decided when we accepted PEP 581. Most of the concerns which have been brought up in this thread were already expressed back then (the account merge one I didn't remember, hence why I replied).

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:49:12 -0400 Ned Deily wrote:

I think this points out a problem with our current bug system and one that it would be good to try to resolve in migrating to a new system: that is, the ambiguity of the "version" metadata in an issue. Today, that list of versions is used in at least three different ways: 1. to document in what Python versions the issue is present; 2. to document in what Python versions the issue should be fixed, 3. to document in what versions the issue was fixed. In many, probably most, cases, the "version" field of a particular issue is used in both ways. When the issue is opened, the version is often set to the versions affected. Then at various stages in its lifecycle, the issue's version field will generally be changed to (possibly) reflect the candidate versions for potential fixes (based on current policy) and later (possibly) to the versions for which a fix was actually merged. The various sets of versions are useful information for different purposes. It would be good to try to find a way to retain both, i.e. something like "affected versions", "targeted versions", and "fixed versions". In any case, resolving the current ambiguity would be good and could also save triage and housekeeping work.

+1. "Affected versions" and "fixed versions" at least seem necessary. This is also what exists on e.g. the Apache JIRA tracker. Regards Antoine.

On Jun 23, 2021, at 03:21, Paul Moore wrote:

PEP 588 has not been accepted, so it's not necessarily relevant to the actual migration plan here, but I do think it's reasonable to ask for some clarification. Either PEP 588 should be rejectected, noting that the actual implementation plan is being maintained differently, or it should be updated as an ongoing document as the planning process goes ahead. I suspect the update on this particular open question might well be "the problem was considered, and ultimately it was concluded that requiring a github account was not a showstopper". That may not please some people (I don't personally care) but that's fine - not everything has to be unanimous, as long as the SC approves.

Mariatta is the author of PEP 588 and I’m the delegate. Given how old that PEP is and the fact that Ezio is managing the project elsewhere, I think rejection is appropriate. However if we do that I think the PEP should at least be updated with references to Ezio’s project, with some verbiage added as to why these changes are being made. What do you think, Mariatta? -Barry

FWIW, GitHub announced new powerful Issues today. https://github.com/features/issues It may fill some gap between GitHub Issues and Roundup. Regards, -- Inada Naoki

FWIW, GitHub announced new powerful Issues today.

https://github.com/features/issues

I have asked GitHub to enable it for the Python org.

Hi Ezio, What is the status of the migration of Python issues from bugs.python.org (Roundup) to GitHub? Is it still a work-in-progress or is it stalled? Victor On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:20 AM Ezio Melotti wrote:

As you might know, PEP 581 (Using GitHub Issues for CPython) has been approved. I've been working with Ewa, Ee, the Working Group, the Steering Council, and the GitHub folks to make this happen, and the SC encouraged me to give you all a quick update.

This effort is being tracked at https://github.com/psf/gh-migration/projects/1: this board reflects the current status of the project. The PEPs (including PEP 588 -- GitHub Issues Migration Plan) haven't been updated yet and might contain outdated information, so please refer to the psf/gh-migration repo for the latest updates.

During the next phase I will work with the WG to sort out all the major issues that we might encounter, and then I will once again reach out to you to gather feedback from the wider audience that follows these mailing lists.

Best Regards, Ezio Melotti _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/Q... Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

-- Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.