IIRC, there was a proposal earlier to “basically” add a “Sponsor” button to all of PyPA’s repositories, pointing to the PackagingWG’s fundraising page. This proposal was blocked on us creating the pypa/.github repository and making sure we have concensus on this. That repository is created now and we have a formal way to confirm that concensus w/ PEP 609’s committer votes.
What exactly would this mean? People would be able to contribute financially towards PyPA? Assuming that’s the primary implication, then don’t we have at least some responsibility to have a general idea of what we’d do with that money? (And document that intention, so people can decide whether their money is being used in a way that they are happy with).
I feel like this is mostly a question of formalities… effectively the PyPA already acts like a project of the PSF, via the Packaging-WG, and I don’t think this would change much in practice. But if formalizing this as a “fiscal sponsorship” relationship makes the paperwork easier for the PSF or something then cool.
“PyPA is a fiscal sponsoree of the PSF, and relies on the PSF’s Packaging WG to manage funds contributed to support development of PyPA projects. Community members may financially contribute to development of PyPA projects by contributing funds to the PSF that are earmarked to be distributed/disbursed by the Packaging WG.”
(Note: I think it might be possible to earmark specifically for “PyPA” once we’re a sponsoree, so we’d run any wording we chose past the PSF staff to be sure it’s accurate)
This is already true today, but previously it was entirely informal based on the individuals in the Packaging WG, as there wasn’t any governance structure on the PyPA side that could agree to becoming a fiscal sponsoree.