[Distutils] Contributing money to package authors/maintainers via PyPI

[Wes Turner]

https://donate.pypi.io/

- Minimum donation: $5
- 1 year PSF Associate Member: $99

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CiviCRM )

SSL certs were a primary cost before letsencrypt (which is sponsored by a
large number of organizations):

- https://letsencrypt.org/
- https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generator/

... Third party payment services handle PCI-DSS (:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard

On Saturday, July 23, 2016, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24 July 2016 at 04:40, Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.chammas at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > This may be a heretical idea, and it’s definitely not something anyone is
> > likely to take on anytime soon, but I’d like to put it up for discussion
> and
> > see what people think.
>
> The PSF wouldn't want to get involved in the actual money transfer
> (facilitating international monetary transfers is complicated at the
> best of times, facilitating them without jeopardising the PSF's public
> interest charity status would be even worse), but one of the things
> I'd personally like to see happen post Warehouse migration is along
> the lines of what Nathaniel Smith suggested: we could adjust the
> publisher facing UX to explicitly nudge people towards explaining how
> ongoing development of their project is funded, and make it not only
> acceptable, but encouraged, for people to engage in fundraising
> activities on their project pages. The public project pages would then
> include that sustainability information, and we'd also make it
> available as part of the project metadata available through the
> service API.
>
> It would then be up to publishers to decide if and how how they wanted
> to seek funds (PayPal, Patreon, Gratipay, BountySource Salt, etc),
> rather than the PyPA or the PSF making that decision on their behalf.
> (However, we could also consider being open to code contributions from
> those kinds of companies that made it easy for publishers to integrate
> their services with PyPI)
>
> If folks publishing software through PyPI didn't personally want or
> need additional funds (e.g. when it's a fully funded institutional
> project, or if it's someone's personal side project that they have no
> interest in turning into a paid job), then we could let them opt in to
> using the relevant space on the project page to display the logo(s) of
> the sponsoring institution(s), encourage contributions to the PSF, or
> leave it blank entirely.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> P.S. As far as RubyTogether goes, that's closer to what the PSF is
> doing with the Packaging Working Group - providing a centrally
> administered shared funding pool for sustaining engineering on common
> community infrastructure. The Python equivalent to that is now for
> organisations to either sign up as PSF Sponsors (or at least explain
> to the PSF what they would like to see in improved expenditure
> reporting before they would sign up as sponsors), or else to make an
> earmarked donation specifically to the community packaging
> infrastructure via https://donate.pypi.io/
>
> It's not the same process or problem as the "help Python project users
> to effectively manage their supply chain by providing them with ways
> to fund Python project publishers"
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com <javascript:;>   |   Brisbane,
> Australia
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org <javascript:;>
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20160724/35a26a9c/attachment.html>