On 3/24/2014 7:04 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com > <mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com>> wrote: >> Beyond that, PEP 462 covers another way for corporate users to give >> back - if they want to build massive commercial enterprises on our >> software, they can help maintain and upgrade the infrastructure that >> makes it possible in the first place. >> >> It's potentially worth reading some of the board candidate statements >> for this year, particularly mine and Van's: >> >> https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundation/BoardCandidates2014 I read all of them. >> The lack of paid development time for CPython compared to similarly >> critical projects like the Linux kernel and OpenStack is of grave >> concern to me personally from a volunteer burnout perspective, I am glad to read that. Some of the expert professional core developers scoff at me being burned out from News Merge Hell and push race losses. >> and it >> was a problem at least Van and I were already specifically wanting to >> address over the next year or so. Over the course of writing the PEP I >> realised that the situation with the Python 2 network security modules >> is a perfect example of the kinds of problems that the current lack of >> upstream engagement and investment can cause. > I'd like to just go on a brief tangent here. > > While I totally agree that it would be incredibly awesome if more > companies put > dedicated time into developing and maintaining CPython I don't think pushing > all the blame on to them is accurate. For all I know, PSF has not yet asked in the right way, whatever that would be. > will be better) but I think it is not doing anyone a favor if we just point > fingers *over there* and claim the fault lies with someone else doing or not > doing something. I agree that we should better figure out what to go going forward. > I *don't* want to disparage anyone or anything of that like, mostly to > say that > while of course increased resources from corporate users would help the > situation > immensely but that additionally there is a reasonably sized contingent of > influential members who still want to treat Python as a hobbyist project and > not a critical piece of the infrastructure of the Internet as a whole. I find that surprising as I do not personally know any such people. To me, Python is both. My only objection is to corporatists who want to exclude amateur and hobbyist projects, for instance from PyPI (which I believe started as a hobbyist project). I personally would like someone paid full-time to upgrade the commit infrastructure, as soon possible. to make current committers more productive and make becoming a committer more attractive. Then I would like 2 people paid, one for doc issues, one to code, to work on the backlog of contributed patches. I know that are people who are not contributing any more because their previous contributions have sat unattended to. > I > *don't* want to get help from downstream users, especially on important but > "boring" or hard issues such as security, and then have them feel > shutdown and > unable to actually get anything done as others who have attempted to resolve > some of these issues in the past have had happen to them. Just from reading pydev, I am not familiar with such events and cannot comment. -- Terry Jan Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4