Hi 
everyone,
I’m Georgi Ker and I’m running for another term mainly to continue the work I’ve been involved in with the board during my current term.
You can find my nomination statement HERE.
If you have any questions regarding my nomination, I’ll try my best to answer here. If you’re more comfortable with other channels, you can also reach out to me on LinkedIn, Mastodon, Bsky.
Hi Georgi, thank you for your work so far. I really enjoyed reading your nomination statement and I wanted to follow up on this point: “Consider reserving a small number of Board seats for appointed directors with expertise the Foundation specifically needs.”
Based on your insight into PSF, what are the skills which the Board needs for this term? What areas of expertise would you like to see among people serving PSF, whatever the route they get there (appointed vs elected)?
Hi Daria,
Thank you for taking the time to read it and for your thoughtful question.
First of all, I would like to clarify one important distinction: I’m not suggesting that appointed directors are somehow more qualified than elected ones. Elections are great at bringing in people with strong community knowledge, trust and their personal experience of Python.
What we cannot forget is that the PSF is also a nonprofit organisation with real fiduciary and operational responsibilities. There are some areas of expertise that can strengthen the Board’s ability to oversee those responsibilities well.
Few areas I think the board will benefit during this period regardless of whether someone arrives by election or appointment:
Finance and investment knowledge. The PSF is managing a significant budget, reserves and long-term financial sustainability. Someone who can think beyond annual budgeting and are comfortable asking hard questions about budget and reserve decisions.
Nonprofit governance and organisational management. Experience with governance, Board structure, accountability, organisational management and the relationship between a Board and professional staff would be very useful.
Fundraising and sponsor relations. Experience with corporate sponsorship structures and grant pipelines outside the ones we already know well, and the ability to think outside the box in building diversified and sustainable nonprofit revenue.
Legal, IP and trademark strategy. Python’s name and IP are extremely valuable. As it grows, so does the complexity of protecting them internationally especially given how global our community and events are.
DEI and community health expertise. The statement is easy to put down in words, but as a practiced skill set for policy and conflict resolution, it’s a different ballgame.
Technology policy and the wider ecosystem. The Board does not need to make technical decisions for PyPI, packaging or other projects, but it does need to understand the strategic risks surrounding the infrastructure and ecosystem the PSF supports. Security, regulation, AI and software supply-chain issues are part of that.
I don’t think every director needs to have one of these backgrounds. A healthy Board also needs community organisers, maintainers, users, regional perspectives and people who understand the Python ecosystem from the ground up.
My point in the statement was really about having another tool available to us, not replacing or weakening elections. Elections should remain the primary way directors join the Board.
But if after an election, there is a clearly identified expertise gap that matters to the Foundation at that particular moment, I think there is value in bringing that expertise for that defined purpose.
That should be done with clear criteria, transparency while preserving the community representation and regional perspectives that are important to the PSF.
I hope this helps answer your question. And thanks once again!
Hi Georgi,
Thank you for this answer. This helps to understand what skills and profiles may help strengthen the PSF Board, as seen by someone with Board experience.
Thank you for your continued work for the community.