# PEP 772: Packaging governance process **URL:** \ **Category:** Coordination\ **Created:** [February 6, 2025, 6:23pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-772-packaging-governance-process/79724 "2025-02-06T18:23:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![charliermarsh](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/charliermarsh/32/10246_2.png) [@charliermarsh](https://discuss.python.org/u/charliermarsh)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 1:53am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-772-packaging-governance-process/79724/4 "2025-02-07T01:53:23Z")
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 🙂 --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-772-packaging-governance-process/79724)._