> "Infrastructure" sounds to me like code for "money".
No, it's rather "volunteer time". Of course, people keep proposing that this should be replaced by hired time that gets paid from donations, but all such proposals so far got stuck at implementation details (i.e. it's actual work that nobody has done). > How much of the > PSF's money, for instance, comes from organizations whose primary > interest is still Python2? How many of them are only or principally > only interested in Python3? Then again, how much of the PSF's budget > goes toward infrastructure? The first two questions are difficult to answer: the PSF doesn't maintain records of what Python versions are of primary interest to sponsor members. A significant portion of the donations comes from the conference surplus (being saved for the also-likely risk of a massive conference loss); in this case, it's even difficult to identify the donors (as you can't really attribute the surplus to being from, say, attendee fees, as opposed to conference sponsors). As for the budget that goes into infrastructure: you'll find the details in the treasurer reports, but it is comparatively minor and goes primarily into hardware purchases. Connectivity and colocation is donated by companies who may not have an actual interest in Python at all (e.g. XS4ALL, which do this out of a general support for free software and in positive recollection of their former employee Thomas Wouters). > For "donated" infrastructure, surely the individuals providing CPU / > bandwidth / diskspace make that call, and not python-dev. Yes, and I have already stated my opinion. Other pydotorg'ers will surely voice their opinion when they get asked to help. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
