Another update, PEP 772 has been approved by the PSF Board. The next step is a PyPA vote.
So, assuming that PEP 772 doesn’t get derailed again, it seems probable it will achieve final approval in the same timeframe of our draft pip proposal.
As Paul has mentioned earlier, waiting for the inaugural Packaging Council to be elected and establish working agreements with the PyPA will render pip’s proposal infeasible due to scheduling. The current text of PEP 772 purposefully excludes any specific language indicating the governance or technical relationship between the Packaging Council and the PyPA. This is particularly problematic since once approved, it will supersede PEP 609, leaving us in a temporary state without any process to vote on any PyPA-level activity, including any funding votes.[1]
This leaves this proposal in an awkward state. I would like to push this forward for pip’s sake, but I will admit that spending money while our governance may or may not be changing is a bit sketchy.
I would propose an alternative solution of doing an one-off PyPA committer vote to approve funding for pip’s specific proposal, but this is strictly prohibited by the current language of PEP 609, so this is not an option, unfortunately.
Any thoughts? Would people be comfortable with this amendment with the understanding that it will likely be only invoked once for pip’s proposal? I’d like to make this happen, but the timing is awkward.
In practice, it’s possible that PEP 609 procedures (e.g., approving the addition of a project to the PyPA organisation) will be followed in the weird transition timeframe between PEP 772 final approval and the adoption of formal working procedures between the PC and the PyPA, but I’m honestly not sure. ↩︎