Just to echo what others have said, regarding our common desire for more specific detail, actionable links/mechanisms for followup and greater transparency and community involvement in these (bi?) monthly updates and well beyond, this is a sentiment I’ve heard elsewhere from other maintainers of critical packaging infrastructure as well. It would seem to me that a modest investment in sharing more with the community would likely greatly benefit all involved.
For what its worth, AFAIK I’ve read everything that @smm has publicly posted over the past few month related to this feature and the lead-up to it, and I was not aware until you (@pf_moore) mentioned it that this feature would be paid-only—did I miss something somewhere (I’m assuming I did)?
I don’t begrudge PyPI from seeking to raise revenue, if it is needed to justify its implementation. However, as a member and maintainer of a volunteer community organization (the Spyder project) which maintains a fair amount of core critical infrastructure in the scientific and broader Python community, but only has a shoestring budget (all of which is devoted to more critical priorities), this is also something I really would have appreciated being made clear and transparent up front, as it dramatically affects my calculus for spending volunteer time supporting this feature.
Also, just to clarify, with regard to
which seems to be one of the areas of greatest interest to us, and indeed has been one of the most critical issues facing the packaging community, this is also something that was requested on the previous update,
to which the response was
Given two months has passed since then, and presumably more since you first reached out to them, are you now able to share at least a summary of your findings? If not, when do you expect to be able to, and what are the main blockers on that?