I appreciate the work that’s gone into this so far! Great to see this coming together. Just want to re-surface the one concern that @zanie raised in the PEP PR itself, which is that this list of initial members would (on the surface) omit many of us working on uv:
- PyPA members: Anyone with the triage bit or commit bit, or at least one project in the PyPA organisation.
- Packaging workgroup members: Anyone who is listed on the Packaging WG charter will be moved into the Packaging community.
- Interested core team members: Any Python core team member who is willing to participate is welcome.
- Wider community members: Non-profit organisations that participate in packaging or working with new packagers. For example, PyOpenSci, NumFocus, Django, are encouraged to initially nominate up to seven members by sending an email to [todo].
For example, I wouldn’t qualify under any of these bullets. Neither would @konstin, who was the original author of maturin, which is an important packaging tool but is not under the PyPA umbrella and is not stewarded by a non-profit. So, I’m mostly looking to understand whether the criteria is structured this way intentionally or whether it should be amended to accommodate those of us working on OSS tools outside the PyPA and outside of a non-profit 