# Closing the loop on PyPA Governance / BDFRN **URL:** \ **Category:** Packaging\ **Created:** [May 30, 2019, 9:18pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776 "2019-05-30T21:18:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sumanah](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/sumanah/32/1722_2.png) [@sumanah](https://discuss.python.org/u/sumanah)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/21 "2019-07-18T16:22:33Z")
A joint reply to @pf_moore @ncoghlan @bernatgabor and @pradyunsg and anyone else who’s wondering about: > [@ncoghlan](#): > > The packaging WG authorised spending PSF money on this a while back. The challenge is that it’s hard to hire someone if you don’t know what to ask for as project deliverables… You may have seen [the December 2018 post on pypa-dev](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pypa-dev/U1six3Pxmrw/yg5c3iNxEwAJ) in which I mentioned that Changeset would be doing communication/facilitation/roadmap work for PyPA. I’ve now posted [an update](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pypa-dev/U1six3Pxmrw/PhKvETT1AwAJ) (belatedly for sure!) about what’s happened since then and what Changeset’s work has gone into so far. I’m glad @dustin started this thread, which I think is pretty related to [Remove the "Authority" from Packaging](https://discuss.python.org/t/remove-the-authority-from-packaging/1993/) I do think that the PyPA needs to, at the least, make it clearer how a person or project joins the PyPA, what the criteria are, what powers it believes itself to hold, under what circumstances the PyPA would stop including a person or project (perhaps because of inactivity), and whether we want some kind of unified roadmap that we’re all working towards. And deciding all of those things are easier if we have someone who is sort of like the Debian Project Leader or a clerk in a Quaker meeting, and that’s what I’d particularly appreciate in a BDFRN role. ---
**Author:** ![dustin](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/dustin/32/149_2.png) [@dustin](https://discuss.python.org/u/dustin)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/22 "2019-07-19T19:33:43Z")
> [@pradyunsg](#): > > @dustin Would you be working on an updated model that separates the governance model from the RFC process change? Yes, if we decide we want to stick with the PEP process, I think this would be reasonable to do. > [@sumanah](#): > > I do think that the PyPA needs to, at the least, make it clearer how a person or project joins the PyPA, what the criteria are, what powers it believes itself to hold, under what circumstances the PyPA would stop including a person or project (perhaps because of inactivity), and whether we want some kind of unified roadmap that we’re all working towards. Agreed. I think this discussion is pretty focused on making technical decisions, but there are a number of other decisions that occasionally need to be made that are currently very ambiguous (especially to “outsiders”) and would benefit from a governance model. Essentially, we could re-invision this discussion as an alternative to [Remove the "Authority" from Packaging](https://discuss.python.org/t/remove-the-authority-from-packaging/1993/), and put actual authority in the organization. ---
**Author:** ![jezdez](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/jezdez/32/5475_2.png) [@jezdez](https://discuss.python.org/u/jezdez)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/23 "2019-07-30T19:05:38Z")
> [@dustin](#): > > Essentially, we could re-invision this discussion as an alternative to [Remove the “Authority” from Packaging](https://discuss.python.org/t/remove-the-authority-from-packaging/1993/), and put actual authority in the organization. 😍 ---
**Author:** ![pradyunsg](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/pradyunsg/32/206_2.png) [@pradyunsg](https://discuss.python.org/u/pradyunsg)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 1:48am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/24 "2019-07-31T01:48:19Z")
> [@dustin](#): > > Yes, if we decide we want to stick with the PEP process, I think this would be reasonable to do. Let’s do this then – we can switch away from the PEP process at a later date if we deem that as necessary; a model that changes as little from status quo as possible would likely be easier to work with right now. ---
**Author:** ![pradyunsg](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/pradyunsg/32/206_2.png) [@pradyunsg](https://discuss.python.org/u/pradyunsg)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 7:26am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/25 "2019-08-22T07:26:45Z")
Is anyone working on the updated governance model, that uses the PEP process? ---
**Author:** ![pradyunsg](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/pradyunsg/32/206_2.png) [@pradyunsg](https://discuss.python.org/u/pradyunsg)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2019, 3:14pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/26 "2019-08-28T15:14:55Z")
> governance model, that uses the PEP process? Well… I found some time today (while procrastinating on my assignments) and came up with one. 🙂 I created a new topic for discussing that model: [PyPA Governance - A "Status-Quo" Model](https://discuss.python.org/t/pypa-governance-a-status-quo-model/2221). ---
**Author:** ![dustin](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/dustin/32/149_2.png) [@dustin](https://discuss.python.org/u/dustin)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 9:34pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/27 "2019-11-05T21:34:39Z")
I’ve taken Pradyun’s modifications to my original proposal and turned it into a PEP draft (with some very light editing): > ---
**Author:** ![brettcannon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/brettcannon/32/34895_2.png) [@brettcannon](https://discuss.python.org/u/brettcannon)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2019, 7:12pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/28 "2019-11-12T19:12:38Z")
10 posts were split to a new topic: [Should PyPA opt out of the PEP process?](https://discuss.python.org/t/should-pypa-opt-out-of-the-pep-process/2645) ---
**Author:** ![dustin](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/dustin/32/149_2.png) [@dustin](https://discuss.python.org/u/dustin)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2019, 11:18pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/34 "2019-11-07T23:18:22Z")
The PEP is now published: > **[PEP 609 -- PyPA Governance](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0609/)** > > The official home of the Python Programming Language Per request I’ve also started a discussion thread in the “PEPs” topic: [https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-609-pypa-governance/](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-609-pypa-governance/) ---
**Author:** ![brettcannon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/brettcannon/32/34895_2.png) [@brettcannon](https://discuss.python.org/u/brettcannon)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776/38 "2019-11-13T21:46:12Z")
A post was merged into an existing topic: [Should PyPA opt out of the PEP process?](https://discuss.python.org/t/should-pypa-opt-out-of-the-pep-process/2645/14) [Previous page](https://discuss.python.org/t/closing-the-loop-on-pypa-governance-bdfrn/1776.md?page=1)