@barry: I modified my PEP 8015. A company is still restricted to <50% of committee members, but I enlarged my commitee to 5 members: so Brett and you can be members (for example) if you want I also changed the rule if a committee member changes their employer: no more need to resign. I wasnāt happy with the painful case of an acquisition (ask the member with the mandate ending earlier to resign), and I also would like to trust core developers to take more about Python than their employer roadmap (in case of conflict). I hope that this change makes you more comfortable with my PEP
Note: PEP 8016 ( cc @njs) asks to resign if a member moves to the same company than 2 other members. Since the PEP 8016 has a no confidence vote, Iām not sure that this rule is really needed.
Tiny correction: PEP 8016 doesnāt specify who has to resign in this situation ā it just says that it has to be resolved, and leaves it up to the affected council members to figure out the best way to do that.
The point of the conflict-of-interest rule isnāt that we expect people to be untrustworthy, and asking people to step down isnāt a personal judgment on them! Just the opposite. Council members are trusted and expected to work for the best interest of Python as a whole. Andā¦ itās not in the best interest of Python if we give the appearance that a single company controls the project. Imagine the headlines if MSās acquisition of Github had also given it a majority on the Python steering council. Imagine what kind of conversations would be happening between managers at Facebook/Instagram, if their rival Google somehow ended up with a majority of Pythonās steering council. Imagine how fun it would be to be on the council, in the middle of a painful acquisition, and discover that people are whispering about your integrity. These kinds of whispers are toxic for everyone, even (or especially!) if theyāre totally unfounded.
Itās just so much better to steer well clear of this mess in the first place. Having boring procedural rules to sort things out are a good way to keep things boring and unemotional. If someone has to step down, then it just means theyāre doing a painful thing for the good of everyone, and weāll all appreciate it and probably vote them back in the next time if they want it.
Oh wow, wait. I went very late to bed and I had not enough sleep. Iām sorry @njs, I was wrong: I didnāt change my policy related to new employer and acquisition: I reverted it before my latest change has been merged!
If the situation of a committee member changes in a way that no longer satisfies the committee constraint (ex: they move to the same company as two other committee members), they have to resign. If the employer of a member is acquired by the employer of two other members, the member with the mandate ending earlier has to resign once the acquisition completes.
@vstinner Iād prefer no restrictions (but with full disclosure), and with ample opportunity for recalls if a company abuses their power. Personally, Iād be shocked if my corporate overlords tried to take advantage of such a situation, and I would hope that our officeholders would have enough personal integrity to ensure they were not instruments of a corporate coup.
For me itās not about corporate overlords trying to exploit the situation, but about subtle biases leading people from the same company to favour the same directions and decisions.
I also changed the rule if a committee member changes their employer: no more need to resign. I wasnāt happy with the painful case of an acquisition (ask the member with the mandate ending earlier to resign), and I also would like to trust core developers to take more about Python than their employer roadmap (in case of conflict). I hope that this change makes you more comfortable with my PEP 