I think @pf_moore’s suggestion makes good sense. It may make sense to have PyPA vote (as stated in the original PEP) on a specific amendment of not to exceed $(insert amount) for pip improvement. Benefits is it would unblock expenditure of funds by demonstrating consensus within existing PyPA governance.
While it may be nice to have a more generic disbursement process documented, I do think that PyPA’s existing governance allows for individual amendments regarding specific disbursements.
While it may be nice to have a more generic disbursement process documented, I do think that PyPA’s existing governance allows for individual amendments regarding specific disbursements.
So, are you proposing that I instead seek to amend PyPA governance specifically on “let pip use $amount of PyPA funds one-time for improvement”?
The whole funding question is tricky because as per PEP 609, PyPA committer votes are only allowed for a strict list of proposals, which doesn’t include anything to do with money:
A PyPA member can put forward a proposal and call for a vote on a public PyPA communication channel. A PyPA committer vote is triggered when a PyPA committer (not the proposer) seconds the proposal.
PyPA committer votes are required for, and limited to, the following kinds of proposals:
(emphasis mine)
It feels weird to directly amend PyPA governance to include details on a specific pip matter, but I guess that would save us an extra vote (one for establishing a process for voting on a pip proposal, and then one more for the actual pip proposal).
I agree that since PyPA governance is going to be changed in the near-medium term future, it doesn’t make sense to spend cycles on a generic disbursement process. It just seemed like obvious path forward (at the time of OP) since there is literally no process right now.
However, @ncoghlan did reach out earlier and suggested that pip consider applying to the Packaging-WG directly for a grant. I hadn’t considered this option since A) I thought the Packaging-WG was inactive, and B) the recent grants from the WG have all been large projects with a project manager and external organisation providing funding, i.e. were more formal than what pip would be bringing forward. I was told I was wrong on both fronts, and that the Packaging-WG could probably vote on a pip proposal.
I’m still waiting to hear back on the viability of going through the Packaging-WG (the rules may have changed since last time the WG issued grants for this type of “informal” contract development), but if I get an affirmative answer, I will withdraw this amendment. Going through the Packaging-WG would be much easier for all of us.
I’m not sure what the initial intent of PEP 609 was @ichard26 but I do think as it reads one can make a case for PyPA to move forward with a proposal and vote on funding pip.
It support the goal:
In the event that a given project needs additional support, or no longer has active maintainers, the PyPA will ensure that the given project will continue to be supported for users to the extent necessary.
I don’t see anything that explicitly forbids using the existing governance from proposing and voting on “a not to exceed $amount for pip”, esp. if the existing governance works together with the PSF, Steering Council, and Packaging WG.
To be clear, we are effectively in caretaker mode while PEP 772 progresses, so your impression on that front was fairly accurate. We’re definitely not actively soliciting new project proposals in general (especially with the main PSF Grants program paused).
However, once formed, the new Python Packaging Council will not only finally provide a way to actually spend PyPA’s fiscal sponsoree funding, it will also be taking over the Packaging WG’s role in advising the PSF on spending the PSF funds earmarked for general packaging ecosystem support. Unlike the PyPA funds, we do have an existing process for spending those PSF funds (via Packaging WG votes), so it makes sense to use that as our bridging mechanism rather than setting up something new.
@ncoghlan has stated that seeking funding through the Packaging-WG is viable, so I will be withdrawing this proposed amendment. While I am still of the opinion that it’s quite unfortunate that PyPA has literally no way to spend any of its own money, this is something that is better addressed when the inaugural Packaging Council is elected and is ready to govern PyPA.
Thank you all for the discussion. While this ultimately went nowhere, I do think it was valuable to talk about money before we have the same conversation in a few months time when it’s time to set the working relationship between the PC and the PyPA.
Agreed! At the very least, it plants the seeds for that discussion, and fewer people will be surprised to hear that allocating the monies that belong to PyPA has no very clear process today.
FWIW, I think many or all of us support spending on pip. It’s just not clear how we should express that support!