PEP 609: PyPA Governance

OK, that PR is now merged and is now up.

I would like for us to finish and accept PEP 609, so that we can use it as a foundation for the next steps in governance – I hope that those next steps can help clear up confusions and unanswered questions that have gotten in my way as I’ve worked on Warehouse, pip, and other PyPA projects. @pf_moore and @dustin: as far as you can tell, are we just waiting on @pradyunsg’s PR regarding the Specifications section, or is there anything else we’re waiting for?

Once @pradyunsg has made any pending changes, I think this is not waiting on anything else.

I agree.

One question - who does this go to for approval? I don’t think it is really within either my or @dstufft’s remit, so I assume it will have to be submitted to the Steering Council?

My understanding is that if there is no BDFL-Delegate, it goes to the Steering Council (to either decide or assign a BDFL-Delegate).

I think this is blocked on:

The latter is relevant since we should provide the context/history relevant to this PEP to the SC. This PEP and that discussions are two very-close-knotted-together topics (should PyPA use the PEP process / how should PyPA use the PEP process).

I’ve gone ahead and:

Discourse is telling me:

Let others join the conversation

This topic is clearly important to you – you’ve posted more than 20% of the replies here.

So, I’ll shush now and go make dinner. :slight_smile:

I notice that the Packaging-WG is part of the terminology section, but is not referenced anywhere else in the document. Perhaps drop this or add a note to clarify that there is not currently any formal relationship between these entities.

1 Like

I’d suggest that as part of this PEP, the PyPA move from its own Code of Conduct to the PSF Code of Conduct. This likely requires the approval of the PSF Conduct Working Group, but it would allow for any incidents to be addressed by that group, rather than being in the hands of the PyPA.

I see nothing in the current draft that concerns me. I believe any formalization is well worth the effort to get things moving. As the PyPA organizes a bit more, it would be good to discuss what fundraising by the Packaging WG looks like and what requirements there would be for disbursement of those funds to the PyPA… but that doesn’t need to be codified into the governance doc.

1 Like

Adding the clarification note sounds like a plan! ^>^

See Move to the PSF Code of Conduct? and know I’m actively working on it. Happy to see it in the PEP explicitly, though.

1 Like

Thanks @pradyunsg for your pull request to clarify how the standing delegations interact with PEP sponsorship/approval. Once we get that reviewed and merged:

I submitted to do this. Awaiting review.

I suggest we either

  1. have Dustin (as BDFRN) prnounce that “yes, we’re now under the PSF CoC”, and then add that to the PEP & other PyPA docs


  1. get PEP 609 in place first, and then use its committer vote mechanism to get a clear ratification of the CoC change.

My sense of @dustin is that he would prefer the latter. Tell me if I’m wrong! Or if there’s another option I missed.

I think a 3rd option (and my preferred option) would be “just put it in the PEP, as part of the new governance process, and have the acceptance of the PEP make it official.”


@dustin Here’s a pull request to add the new PSF CoC stuff to the PEP; please review.

OK, that’s merged! Now we are waiting to merge a PR to clarify expectations around PEP sponsors, and then I think PEP 609 is ready to submit to the Steering Council.

(I have also submitted a PR for (for ) and a PR for the Steering Council standing delegations doc (for ) to add the clarifications from this thread.)

1 Like

I’m not comfortable with us putting this forward for an SC review without a writeup providing the relevant context around this PEP.

I do think that a writeup covering a few key points, provided with the PEP (maybe, as part of it) should be available when we present this to the SC. It would go a long way in aiding the decision making process. There’s a lot of discussion undertaken toward this PEP, which only represents one of the options we could take.

(edit: moar words)

Another way to put what I’m trying to say would be: I think the PEP doesn’t do a good job of describing the “alternatives” and is incomplete in that regard, especially since this information isn’t available in an easily accessible form currently (spread over multiple threads, across multiple platforms). I do view this information as important enough to be a blocker for moving forward with the current draft for an SC review.

And, uh, to err on the side of caution… I’ll also state that I am in favor of this PEP and really don’t wanna stall this discussion unnecessarily. Hopefully, this isn’t a surprise to anyone, given that I’m a co-author on the PEP and it is based on a model I initially designed/worked on in PyPA Governance - A "Status-Quo" Model to get the ball rolling again on this topic. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I really don’t have the bandwidth currently to spend more time on this right now, so I’ll hold back the urge to do the writeup, and just note here what I think of as the “key items” to cover in a writeup for context around this PEP:

(1) why the PyPA wants formalisation and why we have a BDFRN for it
(2) what are the trade-offs and other potential models discussed PyPA
(3) “what is the scope of the PEP process” discussion that took place in
(4) potential PEP process details that need to change to better accommodate PyPA’s usage of the PEP process
(5) why we want the SC to make a decision on this (by accepting the PEP or rejecting it with a recommendation for the PyPA)

1 Like

@dustin I don’t want to take on writing this myself but I could write it with you in a virtual writing sprint.

Sumana and I have prepared a draft of this overview. We’ve opened it up for comments and plan to submit it along with the PEP this Friday to the Steering council for consideration

1 Like

Two relatively minor points:

  1. Naming Donald seems incongruous. There have been various “obvious people to ask” over time, probably depending on which individual project is involved. And personally, I’d probably always ask more than one person. None of which is particularly relevant, which is why I think having a particular name is a distraction. I’d suggest using a generic “X” or “somebody”.
  2. The section “What is the motivation behind the PyPA replacing the PEP process?” is mis-titled, as we’re not proposing to replace it. We’re retaining it, but asking to make a couple of (hopefully minor) tweaks. Maybe a better title would be “How will the PyPA’s use of the PEP process be affected?”