Is it PR review? Issue triage?
Iād also be happy to help with triage and review, given my recent work:
https://github.com/pypa/packaging.python.org/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Abhrutledge
Both. Reviews help unblock merges and activity in issues helps close them faster and collect more points of view.
I think @dustin and @pradyunsg could give you a commit bit if thatās what youāre asking for. Also, thereās a Gardeners team in the PyPA org that gives people some privileges to do things across all repos (mostly relabel things). @dustin should be able to invite you there as well.
@bhrutledge Added you to the āGardenersā team, so you can triage issues across the entire PyPA org, including pypa/packaging.python.org. Let me know if thereās any projects that you donāt have access to, as the team needs to be added to each individual one.
To answer the original question: I think what the guide needs is some more ābest practicesā guidance and some new long-form content/guides. One example Iād like to see included there is ādependency pinning / hashing / compiling workflowsā, but there are others as well.
The issue tracker is also fairly well maintained (thanks @webknjaz and others!) so at a quick glance, it looks like everything with the help wanted label is pick-up-able: Issues Ā· pypa/packaging.python.org Ā· GitHub
I, personally, think thereās roughly 3 things that the guide would benefit from:
- a review of existing content to identify what the gaps are, what updates are needed, which (IMO) will likely lead to some amount of restructuring of the content on the site (reviving [WIP] Edit User Guide to offer more information about usability and use cases by willingc Ā· Pull Request #627 Ā· pypa/packaging.python.org Ā· GitHub has been on my TODO list for many months).
- more content, elaborating on specific workflows and usecases. There was some feedback on this in the pip UX work, but Iāll need to poke folks to figure out what exactly it was.
- a facelift, to look like it is a āmodernā website in 2021.
Thereās also a case to be made that itās not clear āwho makes the final calls hereā, since the folks I understood as the primary maintainers (Thea and Nick) arenāt that active anymore. Idk if they āpassed the batonā to somebody, but clarity here would help a lot as well (especially if someone tackles contentious issues in this area).
Thereās also at least 2 things that Iāve personally dropped the ball on, that Iām happy for someone else to pick up:
- Adding src/ vs flat discussion page, and adding a recommendation for using the src/ layout in projects.
- Clarifying the recommendation situation on pipenv, and getting concensus/decision on what to do here.
On a related note, the stuff that Iām personally chipping away at right now, is to give this site a design update. Iām also sort-of hoping that other PyPA projects would end up adopting the same theme so that itās cohesive overall. And maybe this could also align with the work that the folks on docs.python.org are doing? IDK whatās gonna happen in this whole space TBH, but itās basically the stuff Iām doing right now; and everything in this paragraph depends on how long Iām motivated to chip away at this and if Iām able to convince others that itās actually a good idea. 
Just to give a little context, this came up in from a discussion about binary packing and documentation covering it (which is many years out of date); as a result of that, I made several PRs to packaging.python.org about four weeks ago which havenāt been reviewed yet. I donāt want to work on followup PRs until those are in, etc. I think thereās a small set of people helping with packaging.python.org, and the intersection between them and interest in binary packing is even smaller.
Iād be happy to help, as well, but I canāt help review my own PRs. 
@bhrutledge Youāve beat me by 2 PRs.
Pull requests Ā· pypa/packaging.python.org Ā· GitHub
@dustin @pradyunsg I think Brian deserves to co-maintain this project: Promoting Brian Rutledge as maintainer of the PUG Ā· Issue #926 Ā· pypa/packaging.python.org Ā· GitHub.
Good point. This is the reason I mostly merge non-controversial changes and those with a sufficient amount of discussion and points expressed by different people. Plus sometimes I attempt tracking down folks who have expertise in certain topics to tag them.
FYI I often donāt have time or a strong enough understanding to merge things so I try to involve more folks in the discussions. But if there are some approvals/comments from the community (non-PyPA) that looks credible, this also helps me to approve some PRs. So Iād suggest trying to point more folks at those contributions ā this should result in faster merges (most of the time, except for when I donāt feel confident approving on my own).
Thanks @webknjaz. To be clear, I consider myself to be an āadvanced noviceā in the packaging ecosystem, but this feels like a worthwhile learning opportunity. I also genuinely enjoy code review and wordsmithing (and bikeshedding
). Iād probably be in a similar position as you re: what I feel comfortable merging.
Iāve actually gone ahead and added @bhrutledge to the packaging editors team, since no one has voiced any concerns against doing that so far, at least 3 folks have said +1s (and Iām an additional +1 as well) and Brian has been pretty active around the guide as well.