consider transfer of pip-tools under pypa organization

[ssbarnea]

While I am very happy with how @jazzband org helped with pip-tools project maintenance, I do also think that it would in pip-tools long term interest to be transitioned under @pypa organization. I will try to explain some of the benefits that I see from that:

• increase visibility of pip-tools among other packaging tools under pypa org
• more likely to get active help from other maintainers with heavy packaging experience
• the transfer process indicate that the project owners keep control over the project and that they have ability to add/remove other maintainers, or at least this is how interpreted it
• pip-tools maintainers would be able to be able to influence other decisions made by pypa, i suppose that would likely translate to being less likely to a tool change that break another one (pip extras inside constraints issue could have likely being avoided)
• with all packaging tools under the same work, i think it would be much easier to make introduce changes into shared libraries, like setuptools or packaging for example

This proposal comes after I see the success of transfer of pipx under pypa too.

Does this makes sense? Feel free to upvote or downvote.

[ssbarnea]

@jazzband/pip-tools Can we please get some explicit comments from pip-tools cores?

pipx move under pypa was a big success, and happened long time ago.

One extra reason for reviving this proposal is the lack of action on https://github.com/orgs/jazzband/teams/pip-tools/discussions/13 thread, which makes be believe that is hinders project maintenance, especially as this kind of tool needs lots of discussions and a way to cleanup the issue tracker (converting fake bugs into discussions).

Somehow I think future of pip-tools would be far better pypa due to extra visibility.

[webknjaz]

more likely to get active help from other maintainers with heavy packaging experience

This is not how PyPA operates. People tend to their own projects. There's no obligation to look at any other projects. But if they do want that, there's nothing stopping them from contributing here as well. Moreover, it's even easier here.

pip-tools maintainers would be able to be able to influence other decisions made by pypa, i suppose that would likely translate to being less likely to a tool change that break another one (pip extras inside constraints issue could have likely being avoided)

That's a misconception. There are votes that the PyPA members can participate in. But PyPA, as a group, does not dictate individual projects how and if to implement features. There's nothing stopping one from following a project of interest individually and providing feedback or contributing patches.

with all packaging tools under the same work, i think it would be much easier to make introduce changes into shared libraries, like setuptools or packaging for example

There's no correlation between these either.

[ssbarnea]

Before we attempt to do anything we need to clarify a thing, who is/are the pip-tool project lead?

That is an essential question because only leads can approve a release and normal contributors cannot even see the list of those. Other projects have the main maintainers/leads listed on the README page. I think we should also have the same thing.

I know I can prepare and make the release on github releases, but I have no idea whom can approve it.

[ssbarnea]

I see that @nvie is the only person with access on pypa in addition to the jazzband account and he is still the top contributor, followed by @atugushev.

I guess that he should be on the magic-secret list, so I will try to contact him.

[vphilippon]

For the list of Leads, it can be seen on the Jazzband website, right here: https://jazzband.co/projects/pip-tools

I've been mostly away from the project for a while, so I'll say right away that I'll defer all "vote" on my part on this to @atugushev. As for @davidovich, I would also presume that he would defer to @atugushev, but I'll let him reply by himself.

With all that said, being "Lead" is no more than a "release approver" title. Following Jazzband guidelines, the decision to move to another organization would have to be decided by the active contributors to the project.

If and when the discussion gets far enough to go ahead with a move, the Jazzband Roadie(s) should be notified to see how that can be achieved.

Cheers, and thanks for looking out to the future of pip-tools!

[nvie]

Hi @ssbarnea. I agree that moving pip-tools to PyPA would be great for visibility, and to solidify its position as a mature tool of the Python packaging ecosystem. That seemed like a pipe dream when I started the project—now almost 10 years (😮) ago!

I haven't been involved in development for many years now, but pip-tools is still dear to my heart, and I'm super grateful for Jazzband as a whole, but @atugushev, @vphilippon and @davidovich in particular, for picking up the torch and keeping pip-tools awesome and maturing it over the years.

@atugushev: If you want to champion this move to PyPA, I'd fully support it. If you need anything from me, please let me know, and I am happy to facilitate anytime.

Thanks you all—and cheers to a bright pip-tools future!

[davidovich]

Hi! I too, have been away from the project since I am no longer actively developing in Python for my day job. @atugushev has been a pillar in continued maintenance, and I can only hint at the great amount of work involved. In that regards, if a move to PyPA can help attract other maintainers, or enforce better adherence to standards, I'm sure that would be beneficial.

Since I have not been involved, I need to also defer to @atugushev for the decision.

Kudos to everyone for the continued maintenance and steady stream of fixes and releases!

[atugushev]

While honestly, it's tempting to expose pip-tools under PyPA organization, if there is a vote I would most likely vote for keep staying in JazzBand org.

Being under PyPA org is good from the "marketing perspective". No doubt, It's convenient to have packaging tools under the same umbrella. However, JazzBand is a perfect place where anybody can pick up the project at any time and start contributing and sharing the maintenance burden. It's important for project sustainability in the long run in my opinion.

I'm glad the hear the transfer to PyPA helped pipx project. I'd love to hear some details of the success story to understand the potential perspectives.

I'd like to invite also active contributors to the discussion: @AndydeCleyre @jdufresne @richafrank