[pydotorg-www] [Psf-redesign] Fwd: [Pydotorg] Fwd: pydotorg 'easy' github issues

[anatoly techtonik]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2014 22:55, "Steve Holden" <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote:
>
>> The web site is an open source project. It isn't the sense of what's
>> needed that's absent, it's a busy crew of volunteers swarming all over the
>> site code (including HTNML and CSS) making it better. It's an active team of
>> developers anxious to make python.org the best open source language web site
>> in the world. Without that, little else is going to help.
>
> I consider python.org to be in a similar place to where distutils-sig was
> around 18 months ago - not in a position to make autonomous decisions, and
> hence not a place where volunteers are likely to be keen to participate.
>
> In the distutils-sig case it was python-dev that needed to more effectively
> delegate decision making authority to empower an already interested
> community, and at PyCon 2013, the decision was taken to update PEP 1 to
> address that core problem. End result: a flourishing Python Packaging
> Authority, and a package installer shipping by default with CPython.
>
> For python.org, it is the PSF board that needs to delegate more effectively,
> but just as in the distutils-sig case, properly empowering the python.org
> team requires changing the power structures governing the relationships
> between various groups. As with any delegation of authority, however, trust
> and respect are key elements. In the distutils-sig case, that was built up
> mostly through the pip, wheel and crate.io projects. For python.org, we
> don't yet have anyone demonstrating the same kind of initiative,
> independence and interest that was demonstrated by the leads of those
> projects.

As much as I like discussing politics, I'd prefer to concentrate
on doing what is possible right now with what we have without
placing too much hopes on somebody else or on futures.

I am happy to discuss the political issues that we have without
hijacking thread. You have authority. If authority is silent about
the issue, it leaves an impression that there is no issue or this
issue won't be resolved, because authority doesn't want it to,
which in turn leaves things in a sad state.

So if you want to help, could you state your arguments against
reducing mailing lists to a single entrypoint and making this
entrypoint public? If there are no objections, could you help take
the decision to the action level, because I don't know who else
can do the action here.