On 23 Jul 2015 01:36, "Nikolaus Rath" <nikol...@rath.org> wrote: > > On Jul 22 2015, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 22 July 2015 at 13:23, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> wrote: > >> If it were up to me, I'd focus all the resources of the PSF on reducing > >> this backlog - be that by hiring some core developers to work full-time > >> on just the open bugtracker issues, or by financing development of > >> better code review and commit infrastructure. > > > > Ah, but the PSF can't do that without infringing on python-dev's > > autonomy - switching to my PSF Director's hat, while we'd certainly be > > prepared to help with funding a credible grant proposal for something > > like the Twisted technical fellowship, we wouldn't *impose* help that > > the core developers haven't asked for. > > I don't understand. If I would hire a core developer myself to work on > this (theoretically, I have no plans to do that), would that also be > infringing python-dev's authority? If so, how is that different from me > doing the work? If not, why is it different if the PSF decides to hire > someone?
When somebody else pays someone to work on core development, it's quite clear that that's a private employment matter between that developer and whoever hires them. By contrast, the PSF also has to consider the potential impact on motivation levels for all the current volunteers we *don't* hire, as well as ensuring that expectations are appropriately aligned between everyone involved in the process. I think that's more likely to work out well for all concerned if the process of requesting paid help in keeping the issue tracker backlog under control is initiated *from* the core development community, rather than being externally initiated by the PSF Board. > >> The current situation looks like a downward spiral to me. New > >> contributors are frustrated and leave because they feel their > >> contribution is not welcome, and core developers get burned out by > >> the gigantic backlog and the interaction with frustrated patch > >> submitters - thus further reducing the available manpower. > > > > We actually still have a lot of paid core developer (and potential > > core developer) time locked up in facilitating the Python 2 -> 3 > > migration, as we didn't fully appreciate the extent to which Python > > had been adopted in the Linux ecosystem and elsewhere until folks > > started seeking help upgrading. > > Interesting. Is this information available publically somewhere? I'm > curious what exactly is being worked on. There are a couple of links for Ubuntu & Fedora porting status at https://wiki.python.org/moin/Python3LinuxDistroPortingStatus Canonical & Red Hat between them have several people working on that, and upgrades for a large proportion of the enterprise Linux world are gated behind that effort. The PyCon US sponsor list then provides a decent hint as to the scale of what's needing to be ported behind corporate firewalls: https://us.pycon.org/2015/sponsors/ It definitely qualifies as interesting times :) Cheers, Nick.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
