PEP 772: Updates based on conversations at PyCon

[warsaw]

• Align PPC Electors with PSF voting members as described in the PSF bylaws. Rather than the previous categories, this approach is generally deemed to be both equitable and workable.
• Update the mechanics and timeline of PPC elections, into three phases: self-selection of Electors, nominations of Council members, voting
• Remove the language around initial membership and adding a new member, as these are no longer necessary.
• Add language about the call for deanonymization of ballots in cases where foul play is suspected.
• Clarify the PSC's role in approving changes to this PEP, and responsibilities in certain corner cases of the election process.
• Explicitly disallow PSC members from concurrently serving on the PPC.
• Clarify language around the expectation of the PSC and PSF to adjust existing standing delegations
• Unify language around "Packaging Council Electors" rather than "voting members"
• Added an acknowledgments section
• Various spelling, grammar, and wording fixes

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4429.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0772/

[warsaw]

@pradyunsg @geofft (seems I can't tag Deb). Here's an update that I think captures everything we've been talking about. I'll share with Deb for her approval via Slack.

[hugovk]

(seems I can't tag Deb)

cc @eximious

[hugovk]

The modified paragraphs have been wrapped to ~110 chars, could you rewrap to ~80?

[geofft]

Thanks for putting this together, Barry! This looks good with regard to the conversations we had

[willingc]

Overall, a much improved document. I've left some comments largely related to simplifying language for better clarity.

[warsaw]

I pushed an update and resolved as much of the conversation as I could, but some of the threads were difficult! Anyway, I'll take another pass through this after a bit, but PTAL.

[geofft]

LGTM! Unresolved threads I still see:

• Carol had a rephrasing for the paragraph starting "Only for elections" that I like.
• Carol and I had a brief discussion about term limits, but it might be best to hash that out separate from this PR.

[warsaw]

I'm actually going to also change the title of the PEP to: "Packaging Council governance process". I think that'll make it easier to search for both on the interwebs and within the PEP index.

[warsaw]

Carol had a rephrasing for the paragraph starting "Only for elections" that I like.

I can't seem to find this thread any more. @willingc can you comment here and/or check that the current revision of the PEP doesn't address your suggestion?

Carol and I had a brief discussion about term limits, but it might be best to hash that out separate from this PR.

Happy to. I am of mixed feelings about term limits in general and as they would apply here, but would love to hear your thoughts!

[geofft]

LGTM, continued thanks for your work on this.

Carol's suggestion was to change:

Only for elections involving the entire Packaging Council (such as the initial Council election),

to

If an election must elect the entire Packaging Council, such as the initial Council election,

[willingc]

@warsaw Thanks! I'm good with these changes.

[geofft]

I went down a mild Wikipedia rabbit hole and ended up on their page about electing admins. The community at large (roughly, anyone with an account in good standing) can vote, so this seems potentially relevant for us.

One thing I learned: the "scrutineers" of the election have powers to see (what they call) PII about the voters, namely the IP address and User-Agent and X-Forwarded-For headers used in casting the vote, in addition to the account name and timestamp. On Wikipedia, a small group of (volunteer) users already have an similar power to investigate regular editing actions, called checkuser, when accounts are suspected of being "sockpuppets" (undisclosed duplicates). The elections procedure involves picking three people who already have checkuser rights as election scrutineers. Note that I don't think that scrutineers can see how people actually voted.

The current draft in this PR gives broad leeway to the Returns Officer as to how to conduct the election, so I don't think we need to change anything in the text itself, but I just wanted to note that it seems like a good implementation choice to retain this information in the software and have it be an option for the Steering Council to request this info (to be released to either themselves or their designee) during certification, if there's a suspicion that something went wrong.

[warsaw]

LGTM, continued thanks for your work on this.

Carol's suggestion was to change:

Only for elections involving the entire Packaging Council (such as the initial Council election),

to

If an election must elect the entire Packaging Council, such as the initial Council election,

I think I'll change it to:

Only for elections of the entire Packaging Council (such as the initial Council election)

[warsaw]

Just waiting for a final review from @pradyunsg and @eximious

[warsaw]

Thanks all! I got out-of-band LGTMs from Deb and Pradyun, with one small change, now pushed. I will merge, publish, and post once CI completes.