Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > The current request is: "please, readers of python-dev, setup a team of 6-10 > people to handle roundup or we'll go to a non-free software for bug > tracking".
Actually, it would appear that the request goes out to comp.lang.python/python-list as well (ie. the ungrateful plebs like myself who supposedly have nothing to contribute to the direction of the Python project). [...] > And besides the only thing I'm really sniping the PSF against is about > *ever* having thought of non-FLOSS software. It has already been brought up that Python plays well with everyone and everything, and thus a closed source tool projects the attitudes of the core developers. However, in contrast to the use of tools such as Roundup which have some advocacy value, the adoption of commercial products often works largely in favour of the vendor: they're seen to be helpful and charitable (which they may well be), and there's a certain level of publicity value generated from the transaction (albeit not as much as if the Bugzilla project switched over to a closed source issue tracker). Of course, this message so far probably passes for "being political" in the eyes of certain people, but I think it's interesting to put such decisions in the context of the calls to advocacy that people come out with every now and again. Indeed, I believe that the PSF now have an advocacy coordinator to lead the onslaught selling Python into "business" or whatever people regard Python advocacy to be these days. However, as an open source project it doesn't necessarily send a good message to "business" that the amazing processes that drive Python development are powered by closed source software (although they also have been through the use of SourceForge) and that the developers passed over a project that they were quite happy to use promotionally once upon a time. Indeed, while it was still running, the Software Carpentry competition (the initiative which led to the development of Roundup) was potent publicity material showing that Python and open source development produce great software. The risk is that "business" looks at the level of self-belief ("don't mention the competition by name" [1], but where the competition isn't just other languages: it's also other development methodologies) and wonders whether they wouldn't be better off with some closed source development environment for their closed source commercial product instead. I guess what plebs like myself are supposed to take away from this is the following: if the core developers are subsequently much more productive developing the language (which is not exactly the thing which requires most attention in the Python distribution these days, in my opinion), then who are we to complain as long as we can still stuff our bugs into some Web-based interface or other? Paul [1] http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/2006/03/marketing-why-do-you-use-python.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list