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.
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.
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.
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 https://discuss.python.org/t/2645
(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)
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”.
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?”
I believe @dustin is planning on submitting the overview and the PEP to the Steering Council today. There are a few comments/suggestions there from @pradyunsg that need resolving, but other than that I don’t think anyone has mentioned any outstanding concerns before Dustin submits the PEP.