One question (with 2 parts [1]) - does the “approval train” need to happen in sequence, or can the 3 parts happen at the same time? And following on from that, are you assuming that if we get the approval onto the PSF board agenda for mid-Jan, we’ll get an answer (soon) after that meeting? (The same applies for the SC).
I ask because I believe that typically, PEPs can take a couple of meetings to get approved[2], depending on workload, so expecting a resolution by Feb seems optimistic to me.
More generally, to avoid the issues we had with the last attempt at a vote, we should ensure that parties approving have enough time between the freeze and when an answer is required (and for the PyPA vote, that means the end of the voting period, which will be fixed) to read and consider the PEP. I’d hope by this point that most people will have a pretty clear yes/no view, but we need to avoid the appearance of rushing people to decide on the finalised wording.
I guess it can be? I’d wanna wait for the board vote to happen, then PyPA vote to start and for the SC to look at the PEP during/soon after.
I’m hoping for it. I guess I should have left my sentence about not being worried enough to want to rush the process here in any way. Besides, there’s no guarantee that each of the steps gets a go-ahead anyway.
All the timeline stuff is tentative there, as a somewhat pragmatic best case scenario rather than some sort of hard deadline.
I have the same question as Bernát; A packaging council seems to be the best way to start addressing the problems with governance and processes we have in Python packaging, where it’s hard to make progress with the “BDFL-delegate” model. I don’t have the expertise to weigh in on the proposal, but I’d be very interested in getting a packaging council in some form.
To give a quick update: the last round of changes were significant enough so that the PSF Board needs to re-vote on it. Once we get the Board’s feedback and/or approval, it will then go back to the PyPA for a vote, then to the SC. So, things are moving along, even if more slowly than we all hope.
That’s great to hear! Is there somewhere to follow along when or where these items are being discussed? Pradyun posted a Jan - Feb timeline for the approval, so I’m wondering what the current timeline is and what the latest round of changes was, I didn’t see any updates here or in python/peps.
The PSF Board has approved the latest revision of PEP 772, modulo a small change to the Conflict of Interest section. It now reads:
The Python Steering Council is the final arbiter for technical conflicts of interest, and the Python Software Foundation Board is the final arbiter for conflicts of interest related to governance for the Packaging Council.
With this, the PEP moves on to PyPA approval. @pradyunsg to drive that step.
I have a question. When this PEP is approved by the PyPA and the SC, what happens to PEP 609 in the interim? As noted in the PEP 772 header, it supersedes PEP 609. To me that sounds like the PyPA won’t have an active process to handle governance until the inaugural Packaging Council can be elected, meet, and establish working agreements with the PyPA.
In practice, I’d expect that we will probably continue to follow PEP 609 votes as needed for day to day PyPA business (e.g., possibly the vote to accept pip-tools into the PyPA), but the current lack of certainty is not great. I’m asking because in Amending PyPA Governance to permit for use of PyPA funds, I am proposing that PEP 609 is amended to permit for a funding vote on a (still in draft) paid pip development proposal. If PEP 772 renders PEP 609 inoperative on approval, then that amendment (and thus the pip proposal due to time constraints) would be moot.
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to derail the PEP. I’m just a bit concerned since it may take some time between the PEP achieving final approval and the inaugural Packaging Council being ready to govern and manage PyPA.
If there isn’t a clear answer right now, I’d prefer to have one when the PyPA committer vote is called.
I really don’t want to change PEP 772 to handle this interim period, but my take on it is that until the first PC is actually seated, the 609 process still holds. We’re talking 6 weeks for full election administration, so another possibility is to just hold off on packaging business until the PC is seated. Because SC approval is the last step in 772 approval process, if there’s an ongoing PyPA vote, SC approval can be timed for the smoothest transition, assuming of course that the SC is going to approve it
I also wanna flag this: I’ve posted an issue with a mention for all committers who aren’t on the mailing list already, so that they can get added to vote on it (if they’re so inclined, during this voting period).
[1]) - does the “approval train” need to happen in sequence, or can the 3 parts happen at the same time? And following on from that, are you assuming that if we get the approval onto the PSF board agenda for mid-Jan, we’ll get an answer (soon) after that meeting? (The same applies for the SC).
