PEP 772: Updates based on conversations at PyCon #4429

warsaw · 2025-05-20T15:19:05Z

Align PPC Electors with PSF voting members as described in the PSF bylaws. Rather than the previous categories, this approach is generally deemed to be both equitable and workable.
Update the mechanics and timeline of PPC elections, into three phases: self-selection of Electors, nominations of Council members, voting
Remove the language around initial membership and adding a new member, as these are no longer necessary.
Add language about the call for deanonymization of ballots in cases where foul play is suspected.
Clarify the PSC's role in approving changes to this PEP, and responsibilities in certain corner cases of the election process.
Explicitly disallow PSC members from concurrently serving on the PPC.
Clarify language around the expectation of the PSC and PSF to adjust existing standing delegations
Unify language around "Packaging Council Electors" rather than "voting members"
Added an acknowledgments section
Various spelling, grammar, and wording fixes

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4429.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0772/

* Align PPC Electors with PSF voting members as described in the PSF bylaws. Rather than the previous categories, this approach is generally deemed to be both equitable and workable. * Update the mechanics and timeline of PPC elections, into three phases: self-selection of Electors, nominations of Council members, voting * Remove the language around initial membership and adding a new member, as these are no longer necessary. * Add language about the call for deanonymization of ballots in cases where foul play is suspected. * Clarify the PSC's role in approving changes to this PEP, and responsibilities in certain corner cases of the election process. * Explicitly disallow PSC members from concurrently serving on the PPC. * Clarify language around the expectation of the PSC and PSF to adjust existing standing delegations * Unify language around "Packaging Council Electors" rather than "voting members" * Added an acknowledgments section * Various spelling, grammar, and wording fixes

warsaw · 2025-05-20T15:20:16Z

@pradyunsg @geofft (seems I can't tag Deb). Here's an update that I think captures everything we've been talking about. I'll share with Deb for her approval via Slack.

hugovk · 2025-05-20T15:21:49Z

(seems I can't tag Deb)

cc @eximious

peps/pep-0772.rst

hugovk

The modified paragraphs have been wrapped to ~110 chars, could you rewrap to ~80?

peps/pep-0772.rst

Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>

geofft

Thanks for putting this together, Barry! This looks good with regard to the conversations we had

peps/pep-0772.rst

willingc

Overall, a much improved document. I've left some comments largely related to simplifying language for better clarity.

peps/pep-0772.rst

Co-authored-by: Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@ldpreload.com>

Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>

warsaw · 2025-05-21T21:32:49Z

I pushed an update and resolved as much of the conversation as I could, but some of the threads were difficult! Anyway, I'll take another pass through this after a bit, but PTAL.

geofft

LGTM! Unresolved threads I still see:

Carol had a rephrasing for the paragraph starting "Only for elections" that I like.
Carol and I had a brief discussion about term limits, but it might be best to hash that out separate from this PR.

peps/pep-0772.rst

…rate limit

…legantly.

warsaw · 2025-05-23T00:36:24Z

I'm actually going to also change the title of the PEP to: "Packaging Council governance process". I think that'll make it easier to search for both on the interwebs and within the PEP index.

Also, add the word "Council" to the PEP title for better search results.

python#4429 (comment)

warsaw · 2025-05-23T01:06:27Z

Carol had a rephrasing for the paragraph starting "Only for elections" that I like.

I can't seem to find this thread any more. @willingc can you comment here and/or check that the current revision of the PEP doesn't address your suggestion?

Carol and I had a brief discussion about term limits, but it might be best to hash that out separate from this PR.

Happy to. I am of mixed feelings about term limits in general and as they would apply here, but would love to hear your thoughts!

geofft

LGTM, continued thanks for your work on this.

Carol's suggestion was to change:

Only for elections involving the entire Packaging Council (such as the initial Council election),

to

If an election must elect the entire Packaging Council, such as the initial Council election,

peps/pep-0772.rst

geofft · 2025-05-23T01:42:50Z

peps/pep-0772.rst

+* **Phase 1**: Packaging Council Electors are determined by opt-in self-selection of the `PSF voting
+  members <voting-members>`_.  The PSF voting membership is informed that Packaging Council ballots
+  are available, and any PSF voting member can request the ballot.  The PSF may choose to solicit
+  participation for both the PSF Board elections and Packaging Council elections at the same time.
+  Packaging Council Electors retain their voting rights for the entire year, and may exercise such
+  rights for other community-wide votes that may occur during that year.
+
+* **Phase 2**: Packaging Council Electors may nominate any individual for the Council election, including
+  themselves.  Nominees do not need to be PSF members, but nominations must include information
+  about the nominee's relevant affiliations.

-A council election consists of two phases:
+* **Phase 3**: Each Elector uses their ballot to cast their vote for the Council. They can
+  assign zero to five stars to each candidate.  Voting is performed anonymously. The outcome of the vote is


I just realized that we didn't really define ballots (related to the other thread about ballot access), and so this is actually a little bit out of order. At the minimum, we should say that "ballots will be available," not "are," because at phase 1 we definitely don't know who's on the ballot (unless the idea is we're using fully write-in ballots? but I imagine that is not the case). And it might be worth saying somewhere in phase 2 or 3 that the ballot consists of all nominees, or something.

Also, since we're opening up the electorate, just double-checking because I don't think we discussed this - are we okay with unseconded nominations? Specifically, do we have a technical worry about an unmanageable number of long-shot nominees? We could even require multiple seconds. On the other hand, OSI has a similar model of letting the general public join and nominate, I don't think they require seconds, and I don't think they have had problems with too many nominees.

Also, do nominees need to affirmatively accept their nomination? (We could make this the responsibility of the nominator, to keep things technically simple.)

On the other hand, OSI has a similar model of letting the general public join and nominate, I don't think they require seconds,

Correct, no seconds needed for nomination of OSI affiliate or individual directors. Although they do have a safety net in that elections are advisory with the board deciding on appointments. And there's a third category of directors appointed by the board without community input via elections.

https://opensource.org/about/board-of-directors/elections

and I don't think they have had problems with too many nominees.

Yes, seems they have a reasonable number. This year had 12 or 13 total candidates for three seats. 2023 had nine candidates for three seats.

willingc

@warsaw Thanks! I'm good with these changes.

warsaw requested a review from pradyunsg as a code owner May 20, 2025 15:19

Merge branch 'main' into warsaw/pep-772

da9e7ed

hugovk reviewed May 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

peps/pep-0772.rst Show resolved Hide resolved

Fix duplicate anchor

98ac01e

hugovk reviewed May 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

peps/pep-0772.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

peps/pep-0772.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

peps/pep-0772.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

warsaw and others added 3 commits May 20, 2025 10:42

Update peps/pep-0772.rst

feb2765

Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>

Update peps/pep-0772.rst

90c5622

Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>

Update peps/pep-0772.rst

c726967

Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>

geofft approved these changes May 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

willingc reviewed May 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

warsaw and others added 7 commits May 21, 2025 12:54

Update peps/pep-0772.rst

bf72ee0

Co-authored-by: Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@ldpreload.com>

Update peps/pep-0772.rst

d9fb30f

Co-authored-by: Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@ldpreload.com>

Update peps/pep-0772.rst

61d6b89

Co-authored-by: Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@ldpreload.com>

Update peps/pep-0772.rst

09bb8c7

Co-authored-by: Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@ldpreload.com>

Update peps/pep-0772.rst

d7dd8a9

Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>

Update peps/pep-0772.rst

f72ae4c

Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>

Many updates based on GH review

59872c9

geofft approved these changes May 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

AA-Turner self-requested a review May 22, 2025 05:15

warsaw added 4 commits May 22, 2025 20:02

Use @geofft's rephrasing suggestion for conflict of interest

996868f

Since the SC calls votes of no confidence, we don't need an explicit …

f9038ba

…rate limit

Describe eligibility based on contributing membership a little more e…

1070aef

…legantly.

Elections should be transparent and maintain anonymity

0316925

warsaw added 2 commits May 22, 2025 20:36

Describe quorum for the entire election

b401aaf

Also, add the word "Council" to the PEP title for better search results.

"Removal of a member" section is no longer applicable

efb7222

python#4429 (comment)

We unify "quorum" elsewhere

8ab3c5d

geofft approved these changes May 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

willingc approved these changes May 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

PEP 772: Updates based on conversations at PyCon #4429

Are you sure you want to change the base?

PEP 772: Updates based on conversations at PyCon #4429

Uh oh!

Conversation

warsaw commented May 20, 2025 • edited by hugovk Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

warsaw commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

hugovk commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

hugovk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

geofft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

willingc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

warsaw commented May 21, 2025

Uh oh!

geofft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

warsaw commented May 23, 2025

Uh oh!

warsaw commented May 23, 2025

Uh oh!

geofft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

geofft May 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hugovk May 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

willingc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

warsaw commented May 20, 2025 •

edited by hugovk

Loading