How to clarify pip-tools maintainership + pypa move

[sirosen]

Context

@jezdez raised the issue that the current pypa-committers vote does not have buy-in from the (de-facto) inactive project leads.
I left a reply which my mail client garbled quite badly, but one of the things in there was the suggestion to move discussion here, in jazzband/help. (Just to save the inboxes of other pypa-committers members.)

First, since I don't think what went to the listhost is readable, here's what I wrote as it was intended to be formatted:

Obviously our intent wasn't to subvert any process or make extra work, sorry. :(

Given that PEP 609 doesn't have any provisions for pausing a vote, I think the best option would be to block the move and start over once we have clarity.

This bit of text suffices, regarding additions of projects to pypa:

This proposal must not be opposed by the existing maintainers of the project.

Jannis is a maintainer, and I would also support blocking the move if we don't have clarity that it accords with Jazzband requirements.

Given that we have four days until the vote closes, I would rather we see if we can sort this out satisfactorily before then.
I'll open a jazzband/help issue for us to discuss off of the listhost. I think it's possible that we'll be on good footing to let the vote move forward.

The PyPA Committers vote was initiated 3/19, so should end 3/26.

Blocking the Move if Necessary

If we do not have a clear resolution by 3/25 I will (somewhat reluctantly) return to the listhost and vote against the move, thus reversing my prior vote and blocking it. We will then have much more time to resolve the question of active leads at our leisure, and start the vote again when we are ready.

pip-tools Communications Thusfar

• we have an open GitHub Discussion in pip-tools for this move
• I have added to that discussion a post which pings all of the inactive leads
• I have sent emails to the addresses of each of these people individually (using email addresses I was able to find in git).
  • Vincent Philippon sent a reply that he no longer intends to work on pip-tools, wishing us well with the move, and saying that he will leave a comment for the public record.

How Can Inactive Leads be Removed?

I'm unclear about this. Is there a Jazzband process by which past leads could be removed amicably? I tried looking for past issues and didn't see cases of this, other than self-removals.

If it's the best way forward, we can remove all three inactive leads (following the process for this).

We May (Not) Get Replies

I may or may not get email replies from the various folks I've reached out to. At the time I did not phrase my communication with any urgency.

If I say that I have received emails but we have no public comments, I'm not sure that does us much good, process-wise. If I get email replies but we have no public comments, I can send out requests for public statements.

There's no guarantee that we get this in the next ~3 days, but I'd like to try.

---

cc @webknjaz, I expect you'll agree with me that we want to try to resolve this without redoing the vote if we can. But I don't want to assume that we can do so, so I'm incorporating a level of contingency planning here.

[hugovk]

I think the current pypa-committers vote can go ahead. You need two things to make the move:

• Permission from pypa-committers
• Permission from Jazzband project leads

These things can be done separately.

PyPA can give permission now, but the move cannot be done until the project leads also give permission (or step down or are removed etc).

[jezdez]

About your question about how "inactive" leads can be removed: Some leads have stepped down in the past, but there is no process that is automatic or time-based when they become "inactive". This is not a feature or a process that I will introduce now as part of the sunsetting, as that would increase the effort dramatically.

I do think that your vote via PyPA biases the decision-making process for the other project leads that have put in significant effort into pip-tools. As such, I find it problematic how you've jumped the gun. I was clear on the next steps in my sunsetting announcement, which was that the project leads will receive an email with further instructions before PyCon US. I have not sent out that email yet; PyCon US is in about 2 months.

The best way to handle this unfortunate situation is to have the @jazzband/pip-tools-leads to respond to this issue and acknowledge that they've seen the actions by @sirosen and @webknjaz and confirm that they don't feel pressured to agree to it.

[sirosen]

This is not a feature or a process that I will introduce now as part of the sunsetting, as that would increase the effort dramatically.

Nor am I asking for it! I don't think it would be appropriate to add.

I only wanted to clarify whether or not such a process exists.

I was clear on the next steps in my sunsetting announcement, which was that the project leads will receive an email with further instructions before PyCon US.

As above, it was definitely not our intent to jump ahead in a problematic way -- our understanding (or at least mine) was that we'd be fine to "take care of" our move early and thus reduce or simplify your workload, not increase it.

Regardless, I agree that the result is unfortunate; I just want to find the best possible resolution now that we are here.

---

As noted above, I'll wait a day, but barring any new developments will go back and cancel the pypa vote. We can then wait for Jannis' communications out to all Jazzband projects and handle this in the way he intended.

Hugo may be correct that the votes are (procedurally) independent, but it is simpler and more clear to stop and restart the process. That also reduces any pressure on the other leads.

[vphilippon]

Hello!

The best way to handle this unfortunate situation is to have the @jazzband/pip-tools-leads to respond to this issue and acknowledge that they've seen the actions by @sirosen and @webknjaz and confirm that they don't feel pressured to agree to it.

I have sent my reply here: jazzband/pip-tools#2353 (reply in thread)

And I confirm that I did not feel pressured to accept.

I wish you a smooth Jazzband's sunset, and a bright pip-tools future!

[webknjaz]

These things can be done separately.

Yeah, that was my impression too — the PyPA side accepting the project is a separate authorization that will remain legitimate for however long it'll take to sort out the Jazzband side of things.

[webknjaz]

Alright, looks like there's only @atugushev left to respond.

[atugushev]

Hi everyone! Thanks for pinging, I'm onboard on pip-tools under PyPA umbrella. Regarding removing me from project leads - even though if I'm not always active I'd prefer to stay listed so I can jump back in when I'm ready to contribute again. Thanks for keeping pip-tools alive!