PEP 772: Packaging Council governance process (Round 3)

[jezdez (Jannis Leidel)]

@barry

The PSF Board has approved the current PEP 772, so we are in the “put it to a pypa-committer vote” phase.

That’s incorrect, the board’s resolution is specific to the draft as published on 25 July 2025, not including the verbage about making the SC the final arbiter of conflicts of interest in PEP 772: The PSC is final CoI arbiter (#4668) · python/peps@8851590 · GitHub.

This is why I’m responding to the rather lax perspective shared here earlier about preventing board capture in relation to affiliations, which the PSF board had already acted on in 2021, as noted in PEP 772: Packaging Council governance process (Round 3) - #87 by jezdez . In other words, I strongly disagree with @trobitaille perspective on the matter.

@barry

The way the PEP is written, there is no conflict between the PC and SC, since SC members cannot sit on the PC.

I don’t see it as such and would prefer if the PSF board were made the final arbiter of conflict of interest given the much stronger protection against conflicts of interest related to “common affiliations,” as was added in the PSF by-laws in Comparing 9b3abdad8064471f98fc00ea3c0553403df39897^...c00cc21 · psf/bylaws · GitHub.