https://donate.pypi.io/
- Minimum donation: $5 - 1 year PSF Associate Member: $99 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CiviCRM ) SSL certs were a primary cost before letsencrypt (which is sponsored by a large number of organizations): - https://letsencrypt.org/ - https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generator/ ... Third party payment services handle PCI-DSS (: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard On Saturday, July 23, 2016, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 July 2016 at 04:40, Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > This may be a heretical idea, and it’s definitely not something anyone is > > likely to take on anytime soon, but I’d like to put it up for discussion > and > > see what people think. > > The PSF wouldn't want to get involved in the actual money transfer > (facilitating international monetary transfers is complicated at the > best of times, facilitating them without jeopardising the PSF's public > interest charity status would be even worse), but one of the things > I'd personally like to see happen post Warehouse migration is along > the lines of what Nathaniel Smith suggested: we could adjust the > publisher facing UX to explicitly nudge people towards explaining how > ongoing development of their project is funded, and make it not only > acceptable, but encouraged, for people to engage in fundraising > activities on their project pages. The public project pages would then > include that sustainability information, and we'd also make it > available as part of the project metadata available through the > service API. > > It would then be up to publishers to decide if and how how they wanted > to seek funds (PayPal, Patreon, Gratipay, BountySource Salt, etc), > rather than the PyPA or the PSF making that decision on their behalf. > (However, we could also consider being open to code contributions from > those kinds of companies that made it easy for publishers to integrate > their services with PyPI) > > If folks publishing software through PyPI didn't personally want or > need additional funds (e.g. when it's a fully funded institutional > project, or if it's someone's personal side project that they have no > interest in turning into a paid job), then we could let them opt in to > using the relevant space on the project page to display the logo(s) of > the sponsoring institution(s), encourage contributions to the PSF, or > leave it blank entirely. > > Cheers, > Nick. > > P.S. As far as RubyTogether goes, that's closer to what the PSF is > doing with the Packaging Working Group - providing a centrally > administered shared funding pool for sustaining engineering on common > community infrastructure. The Python equivalent to that is now for > organisations to either sign up as PSF Sponsors (or at least explain > to the PSF what they would like to see in improved expenditure > reporting before they would sign up as sponsors), or else to make an > earmarked donation specifically to the community packaging > infrastructure via https://donate.pypi.io/ > > It's not the same process or problem as the "help Python project users > to effectively manage their supply chain by providing them with ways > to fund Python project publishers" > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com <javascript:;> | Brisbane, > Australia > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org <javascript:;> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig