Hello again, Many FOSS communities struggle with sustainability, but Python is very rich so you've clearly figured it out. It is easy to say that bug metrics are going in the wrong direction. It is also easy to do nothing, or to criticize those who are concerned about a systemic issue. Data can be turned into action by leadership and plans. It can be helpful to have people who think 5,000 is a big number. (Automatically closing old issues doesn't take grit and isn't a valid solution.) It seems you could use at least 10 more dedicated devs who focus on the official CPython bug count. As for WebAssembly, if their security is done mostly via their virtual machine, then they won't be able to separate it. However, if Python in the browser can't enable optional access Numpy, etc., then it will be missing the best reasons to use it. Sometimes security can destroy utility. Just because there are some untrustworthy websites doesn't mean all must be. Warm regards, -Keith
Python Software Foundation (PSF) | Web: https://www.python.org/psf/ | Twitter: https://twitter.com/ThePSF PSF accepts donations, yeah. * https://www.python.org/psf/donations/ * Other ways to fund (additions to, fixes for, idle talk about) open source projects: * Crowdfunding campaign (specific) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdfunding#Crowdfunding_platforms * Bounties (specific / open) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_bounty * "Hire a developer" - https://www.python.org/jobs/ - http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software On Apr 11, 2016 4:48 PM, "Ethan Furman" <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Keith Curtis <keithcu@gmail.com> wrote:
How do you propose to ascertain whether the website the user is visiting is trustworthy? Ask the user whether they trust the author? This sounds like it has great potential to be the security disaster of signed Java applets all over again.
On 12 April 2016 at 07:36, Keith Curtis <keithcu@gmail.com> wrote:
Keith, I get it. You're worried about the issue tracker stats, and apparently believe if you just yell long enough and hard enough here we'll suddenly go "You know, you're right, we never thought of that, and we should drop everything else immediately in favour of seeking funding for full-time core development work". However, CPython core development is only *one* of the activities the PSF helps to support (see [1] for a partial list of others), and it's one where commercial entities can most readily contribute people's time and energy directly rather than indirectly through the Python Software Foundation. As core developers, we're individually free to add our details to the Motivations & Affiliations page at [2] and negotiate with our current and future employers for dedicated time to devote to general CPython maintenance, rather than focusing solely on specific items relevant to our work. Folks that aren't core developers yet, but are fortunate enough to work for organisations with a good career planning process and a vested interest in Python's continued success are free to negotiate with their managers to add "become a CPython core developer and spend some of my working hours on general CPython maintenance" to their individual career goals. Any core developer that chooses to do so is also already free to submit a development grant proposal to the PSF to dedicate some of their time to issue tracker grooming, and it's a fair bet (although not a guarantee) that any such grant proposal would be approved as long as the hourly rate and total amount requested were reasonable, and the activities to be pursued and the desired outcome were defined clearly. However, whether or not anyone chooses to do any of those things is a decision that takes place in the context of that "health, relationships, paid work, volunteer work" priority order I mentioned earlier. Not everyone is going to want to turn a volunteer activity into a paid one, and not everyone is going to want to prioritise CPython core development over their other activities. Telling people "your priorities should be different because I say they should be different" is an approach that has never worked in volunteer management, and never *will* work in volunteer management, as overcoming those differences in intrinsic motivation is the key rationale for paid employment. Regards, Nick. [1] https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundation/Proposals/StrategicPri... [2] https://docs.python.org/devguide/motivations.html -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:58 PM Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this gets to the core of how work gets done in a volunteer organization, and addresses a common misunderstanding people have. Does anyone know of a blog post that expands on this point? I think it would be a good resource to point people to in situations like this. It's easy to think that Python is somehow developed by an organization that decides top-down what's going to get done and who's going to do what, allocating resources as needed. After all, that's how a typical company works. In the Python community (and perhaps in most open-source communities not dominated by a backing company) I gather the rules are very different. Nick
It's easy to think that Python is somehow developed by an organization
Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.chammas@...> writes: that decides top-down what's going to get done and who's going to do what, allocating resources as needed. After all, that's how a typical company works.
In the Python community (and perhaps in most open-source communities not
dominated by a backing company) I gather the rules are very different. This is an excellent point. I think that one of the problems is that the Python website is entirely dominated by the PSF. Perhaps it is time to put a little more emphasis on development again. Stefan Krah
Keith Curtis <keithcu@gmail.com> writes:
This is astounding hubris. You started several threads unprompted and made many posts this week, which can all be fairly characterised as criticism without actionable solutions. How is that usefully distinct from “do nothing”, except for occupying time in apparently fruitless nagging? -- \ “Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual | `\ profit without individual responsibility.” —Ambrose Bierce, | _o__) _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | Ben Finney
Python Software Foundation (PSF) | Web: https://www.python.org/psf/ | Twitter: https://twitter.com/ThePSF PSF accepts donations, yeah. * https://www.python.org/psf/donations/ * Other ways to fund (additions to, fixes for, idle talk about) open source projects: * Crowdfunding campaign (specific) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdfunding#Crowdfunding_platforms * Bounties (specific / open) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_bounty * "Hire a developer" - https://www.python.org/jobs/ - http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software On Apr 11, 2016 4:48 PM, "Ethan Furman" <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Keith Curtis <keithcu@gmail.com> wrote:
How do you propose to ascertain whether the website the user is visiting is trustworthy? Ask the user whether they trust the author? This sounds like it has great potential to be the security disaster of signed Java applets all over again.
On 12 April 2016 at 07:36, Keith Curtis <keithcu@gmail.com> wrote:
Keith, I get it. You're worried about the issue tracker stats, and apparently believe if you just yell long enough and hard enough here we'll suddenly go "You know, you're right, we never thought of that, and we should drop everything else immediately in favour of seeking funding for full-time core development work". However, CPython core development is only *one* of the activities the PSF helps to support (see [1] for a partial list of others), and it's one where commercial entities can most readily contribute people's time and energy directly rather than indirectly through the Python Software Foundation. As core developers, we're individually free to add our details to the Motivations & Affiliations page at [2] and negotiate with our current and future employers for dedicated time to devote to general CPython maintenance, rather than focusing solely on specific items relevant to our work. Folks that aren't core developers yet, but are fortunate enough to work for organisations with a good career planning process and a vested interest in Python's continued success are free to negotiate with their managers to add "become a CPython core developer and spend some of my working hours on general CPython maintenance" to their individual career goals. Any core developer that chooses to do so is also already free to submit a development grant proposal to the PSF to dedicate some of their time to issue tracker grooming, and it's a fair bet (although not a guarantee) that any such grant proposal would be approved as long as the hourly rate and total amount requested were reasonable, and the activities to be pursued and the desired outcome were defined clearly. However, whether or not anyone chooses to do any of those things is a decision that takes place in the context of that "health, relationships, paid work, volunteer work" priority order I mentioned earlier. Not everyone is going to want to turn a volunteer activity into a paid one, and not everyone is going to want to prioritise CPython core development over their other activities. Telling people "your priorities should be different because I say they should be different" is an approach that has never worked in volunteer management, and never *will* work in volunteer management, as overcoming those differences in intrinsic motivation is the key rationale for paid employment. Regards, Nick. [1] https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundation/Proposals/StrategicPri... [2] https://docs.python.org/devguide/motivations.html -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:58 PM Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this gets to the core of how work gets done in a volunteer organization, and addresses a common misunderstanding people have. Does anyone know of a blog post that expands on this point? I think it would be a good resource to point people to in situations like this. It's easy to think that Python is somehow developed by an organization that decides top-down what's going to get done and who's going to do what, allocating resources as needed. After all, that's how a typical company works. In the Python community (and perhaps in most open-source communities not dominated by a backing company) I gather the rules are very different. Nick
It's easy to think that Python is somehow developed by an organization
Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.chammas@...> writes: that decides top-down what's going to get done and who's going to do what, allocating resources as needed. After all, that's how a typical company works.
In the Python community (and perhaps in most open-source communities not
dominated by a backing company) I gather the rules are very different. This is an excellent point. I think that one of the problems is that the Python website is entirely dominated by the PSF. Perhaps it is time to put a little more emphasis on development again. Stefan Krah
Keith Curtis <keithcu@gmail.com> writes:
This is astounding hubris. You started several threads unprompted and made many posts this week, which can all be fairly characterised as criticism without actionable solutions. How is that usefully distinct from “do nothing”, except for occupying time in apparently fruitless nagging? -- \ “Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual | `\ profit without individual responsibility.” —Ambrose Bierce, | _o__) _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | Ben Finney
participants (8)
-
Ben Finney -
Ethan Furman -
Ian Kelly -
Keith Curtis -
Nicholas Chammas -
Nick Coghlan -
Stefan Krah -
Wes Turner