I wrote this in reply on python-dev. Other nominations I’ve seen are really impressive people, most of them folks I consider friends. I think there is some value in having an external member, but that’s for voters to decide. This is not formatted in the style if some other nominations; I may return later to copying that structure, modulo all the specific experience differences.
I do not wish to presume too much on the judgement of the core developers. But I thank Steve Dower for his characterizations which pretty much exactly explain why I’ve had those involvements with the Python community and language I have had, and haven’t done other things.
I’ve been part of the Python community since 1998, but really active in it since about 2001. During the early 2000s, I wrote a large number of widely read articles promoting Python, often delving into explaining semi-obscure features and language design issues. Most of these were with in my column Charming Python. I believe that several changes in Python itself—such as making coroutines easier to use and the design of metaclasses and class decorators—were significantly influenced by things I wrote on the topics.
Mostly in the period after writing that column, i.e. during the 2010s, I served as a Director of the PSF; both before and since my time as a Director, I’ve chaired several PSF committees. That likewise felt like a way I could advance Python best, but from more of an organizational or social perspective than a technical one. It is interesting to me that whereas when I started volunteering for the PSF, there was significant overlap between the PSF board and the core-committers, I think there is little or no overlap today. For better or worse, PSF is much more community than technical today. I feel like my own skills and interest remain somewhat at the intersection of those aspects of Python.
I did not choose during that time, nor since, to become a CPython core developer. I’ve certainly contributed to other projects in the Python ecosystem (I’m not sure if those are “related projects” in the sense Steve mentions). Part of that is time commitment needed, but more of it is my personal strategic choices about what I could best do to advance Python in the world. I’ve felt I can do more by writing, speaking, and participating in the PSF, than I would have by working on the CPython code base itself.
In particular, I always felt that I am not nearly as strong of a C developer as are most core developers. In Python itself, yes, but not in C. I am certain that I could have found some small bug to fix or small feature to add, and gotten it accepted. But doing that would have taken me comparatively more effort than it would many others; I felt that effort was better targeted towards educating Python users and teaching the user-level language design choices Python has made.
If the core developers feel that the overwhelming qualification for the Steering Committee is familiarity with the C code base of CPython, then indeed I am not the best candidate for that. If language design issues are more important—and especially if thinking about Python’s place among users and industry are important, then I think I’m a very good candidate for the role. In particular, I believe my judgement about “Is this feature good for Python users?” would be as good as that of most anyone (maybe other than Guido); but I recognize that my judgement about “Is this feature straightforward to implement in CPython?” or “What are the performance implications of this features?” are weaker than those of most core developers. Not to say I have no instinct about those other questions, but I know to defer.
Best, David…
Similar info at https://gist.github.com/DavidMertz/e889b5d56008eb897cf9af73510c1901