New Python development process (SourceForge considered Harmful?)

[Cary O'Brien]

In article <mailman.970022141.27931.python-list at python.org>,
A.M. Kuchling <akuchlin at mems-exchange.org> wrote:
>Here's a new section for the "What's New in Python 2.0" document
>describing the new development process.  I'd greatly appreciate
>comments on it, both from readers who can point out hard-to-understand
>bits and suggest further interesting points that should be made, and
>also from python-dev people who can point out inaccuracies in my
>description of the current development process.
>
>(*Not* cross-posted to python-dev, since I hate cross-posting.)
>
>--amk
>
>                           3 New Development Process
>                                       
>   The most important change in Python 2.0 may not be to the code at all,
>   but to how Python is developed.
>   
>   In May of 2000, the Python CVS tree was moved to SourceForge.

Does anyone else worry about the continuing increasing reliance on
SourceForge by the "OpenSource Community" (for lack of a better term)?
It seems like almost everything is moving there.

I'm sure that the VA people have dedicated and will continue to
dedicate plenty of human and financial resources to keeping
SourceForge working well, in fact they seem to relish the challenge.
But still, it is a single point of failure.  Not to compare apples and
oranges too much, but I think the "Python Community" hasn't yet fully
recovered from the Starship disk crash.  So even if you assume the
best intensions from VA et al, it the situation worries me.  The
conspiracy-minded out there can undoubtedly come up with even darker
scenarios.

My new motto is "Anything that reduces diversity deserves scrutiny".
Anyone know what that would be in latin?

[snip the rest, sounds great, keep up the good work]

-- cary