Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going to assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org under the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the CoC where we reasonably can. So what I will do is try to convince the managers of python-dev to put it under the CoC and get the CoC mentioned in the footer of bugs.python.org. I will update the devguide to say that the various mailing lists and issue tracker are under the CoC so people are aware, but I won't go as far as I was originally proposing about covering all public, Python-related interactions. Once we move to GitHub we will most likely have a CONTRIBUTING file that links to the devguide and that file will mention that interactions involving the repo are under the CoC (or some other wording that says pull requests fall under the Code of Conduct). On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:29 Brett Cannon wrote: > I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core developers > were expected to follow the PSF CoC ( > https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and > https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have opened > http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented. > > Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting > commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else) > made the change. > ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
Brett, I don't think that spamming all MLs, Github accounts, etc. with CoC notices will help anyone. You may not be aware, but all PSF infrastructure is covered by the PSF CoC already, and has been for quite a while: """ RESOLVED, that the Python Software Foundation shall manage and curate the Foundation's public and member-accessible web properties to remove spam, serve the membership, and conform to the the Python Community Code of Conduct. Approved 9-0-0 by IRC vote, 3 January, 2014. """ All PSF members have acknowledged this and adding yet another notice to each and every point of interaction will not make things better. If there are issues, point people to the CoC. Otherwise, let's not get all tangled up in CoC links everywhere :-) We can get the 16 ton weight out when needed... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90dnUbZMmM and optionally even send the tiger. Cheers, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg On 04.03.2016 22:31, Brett Cannon wrote: > The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going to > assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that > the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org under > the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't > hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are > already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more > comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the > CoC where we reasonably can. > > So what I will do is try to convince the managers of python-dev to put it > under the CoC and get the CoC mentioned in the footer of bugs.python.org. > I will update the devguide to say that the various mailing lists and issue > tracker are under the CoC so people are aware, but I won't go as far as I > was originally proposing about covering all public, Python-related > interactions. Once we move to GitHub we will most likely have a > CONTRIBUTING file that links to the devguide and that file will mention > that interactions involving the repo are under the CoC (or some other > wording that says pull requests fall under the Code of Conduct). > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:29 Brett Cannon wrote: > >> I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core developers >> were expected to follow the PSF CoC ( >> https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and >> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have opened >> http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented. >> >> Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting >> commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else) >> made the change. >> > > > > ___ > python-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 04 2016) >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ >>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/ 2016-02-19: Released eGenix PyRun 2.1.2 ... http://egenix.com/go88 ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ http://www.malemburg.com/ ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:31:44 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going to > assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that > the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org under > the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't > hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are > already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more > comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the > CoC where we reasonably can. I guess I have one more thing to say. Thinking about this, I realized that in fact this emphasis on the CoC is making me feel less like contributing. I doesn't feel like a large effect, but it is real[*]. Just thought you should know :) --David [*] I think it is a feeling of annoyance, like I'm being nagged for no good reason, inclining me to turn my attention away instead of joyfully engaging. Talking about how welcoming the Python community is, and how we can be more so, engenders joy. Talking about codes of conduct engenders annoyance. Regardless of the reality, it *feels* like the bureaucrats have moved in and are squashing the native aliveness of the community. ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 at 14:04 M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Brett, > > I don't think that spamming all MLs, Github accounts, etc. > with CoC notices will help anyone. > Which is not what I'm suggesting nor would I want to do unless it's a stated change in policy so people feel properly notified. > > You may not be aware, but all PSF infrastructure is covered by > the PSF CoC already, and has been for quite a while: > > """ > RESOLVED, that the Python Software Foundation shall manage and curate > the Foundation's public > and member-accessible web properties to remove spam, serve the membership, > and conform to the the > Python Community Code of Conduct. > > Approved 9-0-0 by IRC vote, 3 January, 2014. > """ > That's great, but how are people to know this if they don't read the minutes of the board? Is it considered too much if I link to the minutes in the devguide so people know about this ( https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes/2014-01-06/#management-of-the-psfs-web-properties )? > > All PSF members have acknowledged this and adding yet another > notice to each and every point of interaction will not make > things better. > I'm not worried about PSF members, it's all the new folk who are just "walking off the street" and are looking to contribute. > > If there are issues, point people to the CoC. Otherwise, let's > not get all tangled up in CoC links everywhere :-) > Fair enough, but I would like at least one canonical location to link to that bit of the minutes so that it's somewhere a bit more public. Is a link in the devguide considered acceptable? -Brett > > We can get the 16 ton weight out when needed... > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90dnUbZMmM > > and optionally even send the tiger. > > Cheers, > -- > Marc-Andre Lemburg > > > On 04.03.2016 22:31, Brett Cannon wrote: > > The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going > to > > assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that > > the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org > under > > the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't > > hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are > > already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more > > comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the > > CoC where we reasonably can. > > > > So what I will do is try to convince the managers of python-dev to put it > > under the CoC and get the CoC mentioned in the footer of > bugs.python.org. > > I will update the devguide to say that the various mailing lists and > issue > > tracker are under the CoC so people are aware, but I won't go as far as I > > was originally proposing about covering all public, Python-related > > interactions. Once we move to GitHub we will most likely have a > > CONTRIBUTING file that links to the devguide and that file will mention > > that interactions involving the repo are under the CoC (or some other > > wording that says pull requests fall under the Code of Conduct). > > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:29 Brett Cannon wrote: > > > >> I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core > developers > >> were expected to follow the PSF CoC ( > >> https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and > >> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have opened > >> http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented. > >> > >> Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting > >> commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else) > >> made the change. > >> > > > > > > > > ___ > > python-committers mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > > Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > > > -- > Marc-Andre Lemburg > eGenix.com > > Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 04 2016) > >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ > >>> Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ > >>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/ > > 2016-02-19: Released eGenix PyRun 2.1.2 ... http://egenix.com/go88 > > ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: > >eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 > D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg >Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 >http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ > http://www.malemburg.com/ > > ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: http
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On 03/04/2016 03:07 PM, R. David Murray wrote: > I guess I have one more thing to say. [snip] > [*] I think it is a feeling of annoyance, like I'm being nagged for > no good reason [...] I'm inclined to agree, but some bureaucracy is the price of success. Be grateful somebody else is willing to do the work of getting it in place, so we don't have to. ;) -- ~Ethan~ ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 at 15:07 R. David Murray wrote: > On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:31:44 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > > The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going > to > > assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that > > the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org > under > > the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't > > hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are > > already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more > > comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the > > CoC where we reasonably can. > > I guess I have one more thing to say. > > Thinking about this, I realized that in fact this emphasis on the CoC is > making me feel less like contributing. I doesn't feel like a large > effect, but it is real[*]. Just thought you should know :) > I'm sorry if that's what this thread has caused for you, David, and it's obviously not what I'm after. I guess I'm just worried about the health of this project. I'm doing what I can through the migration to GitHub to make it easier for others to get involved while making it easier for us to accept the work of others, but the maintenance and health of this team worries me. For instance, if you look at the developer's log you will notice we only gained 2 core devs for all of 2015 and the last one was August 2015: https://docs.python.org/devguide/developers.html. 2013 was the next slowest year with 4, but most years are much closer to 10 than 0. We also still have no female or minority members. Now I'm not advocating for some quota for adding new members or that they have to meet some minority group status, but we should be aware of this and perhaps ask why this is. When I thought about this the other week after a cranky email to python-dev appeared I realized that the CoC isn't exactly advertised so that people know they shouldn't act mean here like they might in other corners of the internet where it's tolerated. I thought perhaps if we took this one time to make it officially in effect then it would remove at least one tiny barrier that might be holding up people from getting more involved. I certainly don't want any morality police, but I do want people to know that Python development is not one of the mean, cesspool corners of the internet either. And so I figured adding a link at the bottom of a couple of things would be a minor thing and a nice gesture to newcomers. I didn't mean for it to seem like a perpetual burden for anyone or a deterrent to contributing. -Brett > > --David > > [*] I think it is a feeling of annoyance, like I'm being nagged for > no good reason, inclining me to turn my attention away instead of joyfully > engaging. Talking about how welcoming the Python community is, and how we > can be more so, engenders joy. Talking about codes of conduct engenders > annoyance. Regardless of the reality, it *feels* like the bureaucrats > have moved in and are squashing the native aliveness of the community. > ___ > python-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > When I thought about this the other week after a > cranky email to python-dev appeared I realized that the CoC isn't exactly > advertised so that people know they shouldn't act mean here like they might > in other corners of the internet where it's tolerated. I thought perhaps if > we took this one time to make it officially in effect then it would remove > at least one tiny barrier that might be holding up people from getting more > involved. I certainly don't want any morality police, but I do want people > to know that Python development is not one of the mean, cesspool corners of > the internet either. And so I figured adding a link at the bottom of a > couple of things would be a minor thing and a nice gesture to newcomers. I > didn't mean for it to seem like a perpetual burden for anyone or a deterrent > to contributing. Perhaps it would be sufficient to reference the CoC on each list's page rather than in each email footer. Then it's not so in-your-face (not that I had visually noticed that it was already added on recently). -eric ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On 03/04/2016 04:07 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: We also still have no female or minority members. Well, I'n not female, but I am of Native American / Latino descent. So you have at least one. :) And yes, those extremely low numbers of new committers are a bit worrying. :( -- ~Ethan~ ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Redoing the C API?
p On 03/03/2016 09:58 AM, Eric Snow wrote: On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: ...what would we need to do to our C API to make it so that anyone following a new API wouldn't be broken if we dropped the GIL? If I recall correctly, this was one key topic that Larry discussed at the language summit latest year. Kinda, yeah. Certainly it's a topic I've thought a lot about. Consider this. With almost no exceptions*, none of the popular new languages have a C API. Instead they'll have a foreign function interface allowing you to call C from inside the language. So you don't write extensions in C and call into the language, you write your extensions natively in the language and call out. One advantage of this technique is that it allows most implementation details of the language to remain hidden. CPython can't drop reference counting and move solely to tracing garbage collection, because the C API lets external callers deal with Python objects, which means Python's internal object lifetime management approach must be visible, which means it's implicitly part of the API. In short, if we change from reference counting to tracing GC, we break every C extension in existence, kablooey, oblivion. But! If there were no C extensions--if all Python programs talked to native libraries through FFIs like ctypes and cffi--then this would be a private implementation detail and we could iterate however we liked on object lifetime management. I've asked Armin Rigo about PyPy here. Pardon me if my memory is faulty, but what I think he said was this: they started with GC, then went to generational GC, then went to incremental generational GC. If they'd had a C API, going to generational probably wouldn't have broken all their extensions, but going to incremental absolutely would have. Since PyPy doesn't have a C API, naturally they can change it all they like. If we could wave a magic wand and get all extension authors to switch to writing their extensions in Python and using cffi, we should absolutely do it. That'd be great for cross-implementation compatibility; your extension would (hopefully) run unchanged in CPython and PyPy today, and I heard a rumor that Jython and IronPython want to support cffi too, so hey! someday it might run unchanged in those too. This would also make it possible for CPython to declare that the C API was dead and free us up to make some radical but welcome changes to CPython's innards. Unfortunately, we don't have such a magic wand, and I don't think there's any workable path to convince extension authors to switch en masse. And if we're stuck with the C API, we're stuck with a lot of the implementation details that are baked into it. I'm hoping to present on this subject at this year's summit. I hope all the interested core devs can make it! //arry/ * The only exception I know of is Lua--are there more? ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:31:44 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > I guess I'm just worried about the health of this project. I'm doing what I > can through the migration to GitHub to make it easier for others to get > involved while making it easier for us to accept the work of others, but > the maintenance and health of this team worries me. For instance, if you > look at the developer's log you will notice we only gained 2 core devs for > all of 2015 and the last one was August 2015: > https://docs.python.org/devguide/developers.html. 2013 was the next slowest > year with 4, but most years are much closer to 10 than 0. We also still > have no female or minority members. Remember how new committers happen: current committers notice their contributions on the tracker, suggest they be given the commit bit and offer to mentor them, and we take a poll. The critical bits here are (1) noticing and (2) being willing to mentor. So, if we want more committers, current ones need to put forth the effort to monitor active bugs, evaluate prospects, and recommend and mentor them. And hopefully do some mentoring via the bug tracker to get more people commit-bit ready. This is a catch 22: we need more active committers in order to get more active committers. But we know that; that question is what to do about it. I the past few years I've monitored the bug tracker fairly closely, and watched for good prospects, and recommended or inspired the recommendation of several. Right now I don't have the time to monitor the bug tracker the way I had been and watch people the way I had been, so I won't be in a position to recommend anyone for the next while --David PS: Actually, let me throw out that the people that had been at the top of my list before I stopped were eryksun, paul.j3 (for argparse), and davin (for multiprocessing). And I suspect maciej.szulik is also a candidate once we've seen a few more patches from him. (And I need to find the time to review the ones he has already submitted in the email area.) Someone or ones should look at tracker activity by username and see if they can find some more candidates. ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > I guess I'm just worried about the health of this project. I'm doing what I > can through the migration to GitHub to make it easier for others to get > involved while making it easier for us to accept the work of others, but the > maintenance and health of this team worries me. For instance, if you look at > the developer's log you will notice we only gained 2 core devs for all of > 2015 and the last one was August 2015: Last year on this list, I recommended that Davin Potts be granted core developer status for his on-going work on the multiprocessing module. This group collectively said no, leaving Davin in an odd and uncomfortable limbo. The social barriers to entry proved too high even for an seasoned open source developer, the former chief scientist at Continuum, who had already devoted substantial time to reviewing the 100+ tracker entries for multiprocessing, who had expressed a willingness to handle complex and neglected tasks, and who was recommended by an active core developer. If someone of his stature faces an uphill battle, then perhaps there is reason to worry. Raymond ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Davin Potts as a new committer
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:07 PM Raymond Hettinger < [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > I guess I'm just worried about the health of this project. I'm doing > what I can through the migration to GitHub to make it easier for others to > get involved while making it easier for us to accept the work of others, > but the maintenance and health of this team worries me. For instance, if > you look at the developer's log you will notice we only gained 2 core devs > for all of 2015 and the last one was August 2015: > > Last year on this list, I recommended that Davin Potts be granted core > developer status for his on-going work on the multiprocessing module. This > group collectively said no, leaving Davin in an odd and uncomfortable limbo. > Huh? Searching for Davin Potts in my mail, I see a ~27 message long thread from January 2015 about that. Many of us were +1 to give him commit rights. I personally assumed it had happened, but the only objections seemed to be "lets see some patches first"... That part has happened: Among the *other* things in my mail with Davin's name mentioned are several streams of committed patches over the past year or so on multiprocessing related issues (as expected), including recently. berker.peksag, martin.panter and serhiy.storchaka have been the primary committers of said Davin patches. Let's get Davin a commit bit. -gps ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
