Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> writes: > In my opinion, the community is best served by a good comment/review > system, one which avoids the worst trolling, and allows authors the > right of reply, but does not allow authors to censor inconvenient but > honest reviews.
I think you're right. I also think, though, that the community is best served by an objective repository of third-party Python packages, with information derived only directly from the package itself and objective data. That allows the least barrier to having a package maintainer want to register their package with such a service, which is in the interest of having it be as complete a registry of packages as can be. A community forum, on the other hand, has many characteristics that will be *disincentives* to a package manager for having their package appear there. It's never going to attract as many package maintainers as an impartial, objective registry; the many reasons already given here as to why some package maintainers *don't* want their packages in such a system are evidence of that. Those two purposes — community forum, impartial registry — are in conflict. I think PyPI has clearly already been serving the role of the registry, and that any community forum should be quite separate to encourage those who don't like it to still register their packages at PyPI. -- \ “I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance | `\ any day.” —Douglas Adams | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
