This would be an opportunity to clearly define the “standard library” as something other than “all the stuff that ships with cPython”

With that in mind:

> Would MicroPython include framebuf in stdlib, PyPI include cffi, etc.? 

No, they wouldn’t. The Stalin would be, well, a standard. If something  is only going to exist on some platforms or implementations, they should not be in that namespace. 

A “pypy” or “upy” namespace would be the place to put those things. Then it’s obvious to everyone where code that uses those will and won’t run.

Granted, something like MicroPython May never support the entire Stdlib, but the goal should be to define what a “complete” stub is.

> Does it include things like test that are inside the lib/pythonX.Y directory but not intended to be imported? 

I don’t think so— the point would be to define a namespace to use to import stuff

> What about __future__? 

Nope: that isn’t really an import. 

> Would Apple’s Python distribution include their extra modules like PyObjC, 

Nope -/ again, not “standard”

> would Debian’s exclude the ones they’ve taken out of the python package and put in separate debs?

That’s a tricky one, but probably yes.