On 23 Sep 2014 00:19, "Antoine Pitrou" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Donald Stufft <donald <at> stufft.io> writes: > > > > PyPI inherinently has complete control over who owns what name on PyPI. > > Political authority does not derive from technical control, though. > > > As Toshio said that are situations where it makes *obvious* sense to transfer > > ownership of a project. Using Django as an pretty good example here, There are > > four people able to make releases there, until fairly recently there were only > > two if I recall. I don't think anyone would be against PyPI transfering > > ownership of Django to another active core developer of Django in the event > > that all of the people with permissions on PyPI were gone in some fashion. > > Assuming the remaining Django core developers agree on it, then, yes, that > can make sense. That's because they are the primary authors of the project > (even though they might not have been listed as such on PyPI). > > The case people are worried about is whether someone who is not part of the > original project author(s) or maintainer(s) can get assigned the PyPI project. > In that case people should use one of the forks; there's no reason for PyPI > to crown a successor.
That's why I consider it important to get the original project's issue tracker involved in the transfer process. I'd also be OK with a process that required an affirmative "Yes" from the project community, defaulting to "No transfer" in the case of a lack of response. Transfers are most needed for highly active projects where a fork could have a lot of ripple effects. I think it's reasonable to interpret "nobody cared enough to say yes or no" as "nobody cares enough for a transfer to be needed - just fork it rather than claiming the name". Regards, Nick.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
