What do you want in Python packaging's future governance model?

Governs everything that interacts with PyPI. The core distribution mechanism covered by “Python packaging” should be PyPI (or a successor to PyPI), with other distribution methods being independent (but supported, see my previous point).

Note that “governs” here does not necessarily mean “manages”. The PyPA currently “governs” various projects, but explicitly does not have a say in day to day project maintenance. However, it could mean something stronger[1] if the projects involved agree.

This is a major social issue, of course. Unlike the current PyPA, I’m explicitly saying that “not being under the packaging governance model” should not be a credible position for a tool that wants to be considered a mainstream packaging tool to take. It’s going to be very hard to make this work, and will involve a lot of compromises and negotiation. But if we’re not going to do this, I don’t see that we can credibly describe what we have as “packaging governance”.


  1. or weaker, I guess :slightly_smiling_face: ↩︎

8 Likes