Hynek, Thanks for writing this email. For what it’s worth, I disagree with the premise, but let’s just grant it and discuss the future of PyOpenSSL.
I think it’s safe to say that everyone with the commit bit has pretty lukewarm feelings towards PyOpenSSL. At this point it primarily exists to serve Twisted: in most situations Requests can get by with using the stdlib thanks to 2.7.9 fixing many problems, and as time marches on the spectrum of users that need PyOpenSSL for Requests is getting smaller and smaller. However, I agree that PyOpenSSL isn’t going anywhere, especially given that python-dev is reluctant to backport MemoryBIO. There does not appear to be any reason to assume that PyOpenSSL can be abandoned until after 2020 at the very earliest, especially as it may turn out that I need it for PEP 543 anyway. So I 100% agree that we need to find a way to transition maintainership. My proposal is to just formalize the position we already mostly have and say that PyOpenSSL has no single lead maintainer, but is co-maintained by the PyCA team. We can then discuss whether there is value in bringing in others to help spread the load around. This is already the de facto state of PyOpenSSL: we’d just be formalizing that position so we can remove your name from the “maintainer” slot and try to reduce the amount of email you get. How does that sound? Cory _______________________________________________ Cryptography-dev mailing list Cryptography-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cryptography-dev
