Python Packaging Strategy Discussion - Part 2

Agreed, but as @pradyunsg noted, this isn’t something that our contributor base is likely to pick up on (anyone interested in doing this probably already is, the rest of us aren’t likely to do so just because someone says it’s a good idea).

Much like with the previous discussion, we can talk endlessly about the problem, but not much will happen unless someone steps up and says they can organise something and deliver people able and willing to work on it. And in that case, they can say what they plan on doing, and the rest of us are mostly just going to be saying whether we like the idea or not.

Organisationally, the PyPA has no power to dictate anything - and that’s by design (see PEP 609 and the PyPA goals). Discussions like this tend mostly to demonstrate that there’s no uniform view on direction among PyPA members (let alone among non-PyPA projects like conda and poetry). Given this, I’m genuinely not sure what the purpose of these strategy discussions is meant to be. It’s sharing the survey results, which is good, but what “strategy” is coming from it? There wasn’t much consensus on the previous discussion, so does that mean we have no strategy? Or will someone propose a strategy, in which case without a change in PyPA governance, what difference will that make? (Even with a change in governance, I don’t see anyone imposing a particular direction on packaging projects - there’s too much history of independence for that to happen any time soon).

I’d like to see improvements in the packaging ecosystem, and I certainly don’t think our current approach is ideal. But are these strategy discussions likely to deliver anything better, or are they just taking energy and bandwidth away from the people working on making progress?

1 Like