Should PyPA opt out of the PEP process?

[dustin (Dustin Ingram)]

Thanks for raising this @pganssle. I think this might be worth breaking into a separate thread but I’ll reply here for now.

Would it make sense to use a combination of #1 and #2? I.e., add a Track: Packaging header to all packaging-related PEPs, and consider PyPA members committers (which will be well-defined with PEP 609) equivalent to core devs w/ regards to sponsorship for that track?

Aside from all the concerns listed above about #3 with regards to duplicating effort and process, I’d also be concerned that any non-PEP process wouldn’t be perceived as having the same weight/authority as the PEP process by the wider community.

@steve.dower

We’ve discussed this before, and I think the result was that anything “approved” by whoever in the PyPA has that job counts as the endorsement of a core developer.

I’m having a hard time parsing this sentence. Are you talking about BDFL-Delegates?