[PEP 8015] Make Python Core Board, PSF board and/or Conduct Workgroup exclusive?

Committers
1

Hi,

Christian Heimes asked me if we should deny a member of the PSF board to also apply to the Python Core Board, to not accumulate “too much power”. I’m not opposed to this idea. But I’m not sure about the power. In the current design of the PEP 8015, Python Core Board don’t have “too much” power IMHO. It’s part of the design (see the Rationale section).

Related question: if you put such restriction, would it mean that a candidate would have to choose to be only involved in the PSF or only involved in CPython core development? Is it something that we want?

Honestly, I’m unable to build my own opinion, since I’m not really involved in the PSF (board) yet.

Moreover, the PSF Conduct Workgroup has a big power: it is able to ban a member of the Python community. For a core developer, it implies to immediately loose the core dev status.

Is it a conflict of interest if someone is part of the Conduct Workgroup and the Python Core Board?

… Oh, I didn’t expect so many tricky questions :smiley: But they are interesting questions, thanks for asking @tiran!

Victor

1 Like
2

Thanks Victor!

I actually have two reasons to propose PCD (Python Core Dev) and PSF board to be mutually exclusive. For one and as Victor already mentioned, I think that both boards should be work and act independently. While I think it’s a good thing to have core developers in the PSF board to voice the concerns of us, I’d prefer to avoid to accumulate too much responsibility and power within one person.

More importantly, it’s too much work load. Neither core development nor PSF or PCD board are paid jobs. Members do all the work in their free time. On the other hand, all three responsibilities can take up a lot of time. I’ve been a core dev (on and off) for about ten years and have been a directory of the Plone Foundation for a year. I know how time consuming and stressing any of these jobs can be from first hand experience. PSF and PCD board members are elected for three years each. IMO no unpaid volunteer can do a good job in all three positions at the same time.

I rather see the load spread across as many people as possible to make it sustainable. The PEP doesn’t need a hard enforcement. A recommendation is good enough, too.

1 Like
3

I tried to limit responsibilities of the Python Core dev Board to reduce the risk of burnout. We all have a life outside Python and other priorities.

You know what? I would like if you can propose a PR on my PEP :slight_smile: I’m fine with a recommendation.

4

Note: I chose to start a thread different than the PEP 8015 discussion, since other governance PEPs have a “board”, “council” or a similar entity (which has more power than regular core dev), and so IMHO the question stands for other PEPs as well.

1 Like
5

It’s a conflict of interest if they participate in discussions about a core dev while part of the conduct WG, but I don’t think it’s inherently an issue as there plenty of other issues that are not core-related.

1 Like
6

I can also easily imagine someone being funded to fill these roles, at which point there may be other concerns, but not a workload concern.

Let people manage their own workload (and work styles, where appropriate). We don’t need to encode everything into law in advance.

1 Like
7

I’m opposed to an outright ban. We have democracy to handle the case of someone having too much power, and I agree that folks can deal with their own workload as best they see fit. I don’t think someone would need to resign one or the other membership should they get elected to the other.

1 Like