PEP 772: Packaging Council governance process (Round 2)

My feedback based on the discussions at yesterday’s Packaging Summit at EuroPython:

  • This is great!
  • Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that Packaging Council Electors would have to opt into that separately from affirming their PSF membership. I’m probably either misunderstanding or lacking context on why this is a necessity.
  • During the conversation I think some of the rationale presented was this Council would reduce bus factor (great), be more intentional / less ad-hoc governance (great), and also be more diverse(?). Not sure if I misunderstood this as I don’t see this being mentioned in the PEP(?)

And two more meta points:

  • It could be simpler to give feedback on this? I wouldn’t mind a structured feedback form or similar personally, in addition to opportunity for unstructured discussions. As-is it’s not clear how much I’m helping or just re-sharing the same points as others. Hard to understand that after 75 forum messages so far, almost 6 months, and this being a second round of feedback
  • I really liked the Appendix B: Operational suggestions for the Council, and I think I could use a similar “topic suggestions” with a non-binding sample of “concrete things the Packaging Council would do if it existed”. I have a reasonable idea of some of those things based on discussions in Packaging on the forum, but could specific examples to clarify what day-to-day might look like once this is up and running.
2 Likes

Likely for quorum reasons, so only those interested in packaging are counted against the total:

Quorum for Packaging Council votes (either cohort election or votes of no confidence) is 50% of Electors.

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll try to follow up point by point, but I did want to mention two things.

  • We have an open PR in review which will represent an updated draft of the PEP. This may answer some of your questions. I do intend to refresh another DPO thread once we publish this latest update.
  • We’re waiting on some feedback from the PSF about the mechanics and such, so there may be a few updates to the PR after we get that.

Yes, exactly.

It’s really about bringing more viewpoints and voices to the table. Packaging has such a huge surface area, and likely touches corners of the Python ecosystem that we have no idea about. This is one part of trying to give those voices a way to be heard.

Yeah, it’s just kind of the nature of communication these days. DPO is really the best way. It’s always super difficult to keep up with long threads, but hopefully we’re converging. I’ll mention the form idea to my co-authors.

That’s difficult to add in a governing document, but I’ll mention it to my co-authors too.

Thanks again for your feedback!

1 Like