Hello folks,
I’m looking forward to connecting and answering questions about my candidacy for the PSF Board of Directors this year.
I previously served on the PSF Board from June 2020 to June 2023, including as a Communications Co-Chair from 2021–2022 and Co-Vice Chair from 2022–2023.
You can learn more about me and my candidacy in my nomination statement.
With the formation of the Packaging Python Council (PPC) today to vote in this election you need to be a PSF voting member. This requires one of the 3 paths documented here Become a Member of the PSF | Python Software Foundation. Going ahead how do you think the PSF board and the PPC should work together? Do you think the 3 required paths sufficient to make sure no one feels excluded from the packaging story? If not, how would you improve on it? Thanks and best of luck Nina!
Hi Bernát,
I did my best to familiarize myself with your viewpoint via your PPC nomination statement, AMA, and the surrounding discussions around PEP 772, so I could try to give you an informed answer.
My understanding of part of the concern raised is that there’s a population interested in the packaging side / PPC that may not have an automatic interest in the Python ecosystem as a whole, or want an affiliation with the PSF. And possibly a concern that the current voting body of PSF members doesn’t have enough of an interest in packaging to provide a representative vote that’s not just based on name recognition.
So if the PPC elections are tied to the PSF elections, is there a missed opportunity to pick up informed voters? Should the PPC have its own system for voting?
My answer takes into account not letting perfect be the enemy of good. Many improvements have come in over the years to PSF membership and voting, such as the no-questions-asked $25 supporting tier, and simplifications to the intent-to-vote affirmation process. But of course, it’s not perfect.
Some people interested in packaging would understandably rather skip PSF affiliation altogether. But elections need a membership roll somewhere, someone has to maintain it and answer for it, and the PSF already does that work, on top of owning, maintaining, securing, and funding PyPI. So I believe the current member system is still the PSF’s best way to create elections that are accountable, public, and voted in by members with a stake (financial or time-based) in the organization, and in my personal opinion, to limit brigading in elections. Of the three paths, the one worth highlighting is that anyone contributing 5 hours a month around packaging in Python can self-certify for voting-eligible PSF Contributing Membership here at no cost.
If the newly elected PPC believes there’s a portion of the community (overall Python, or the packaging subset specifically) that’s not served by these requirements, the council should bring a proposal for bylaw changes to the board, which can then be put to a vote of the PSF membership, the same way recent membership bylaw changes were passed. I’d also support gathering data, like a community survey, on who is not being reached and why, so any changes are grounded in evidence rather than assumptions. My hope is that these conversations happen in public with community involvement and input. I’d also support the board and the PPC writing down how they work with each other, who decides what, and how disagreements get resolved, rather than leaving it open-ended.
While a “wait and see” approach to election processes is frustrating, I also think it’s important to acknowledge that we’re in untested waters. The PPC is the first peer-elected council around packaging. I’m sure there will be bumps in the road, but given the thoughtfulness I’ve witnessed on the PSF board and the list of standout candidates for the PPC, I’m hopeful that the path forward will be not just good intentions but a genuine, supportive collaboration between the two groups.
I hope I got the gist of your questions right and covered your concerns.
Best,
Nina