Poor management has played a role. They refused to invest in packaging to the extent that a separate company (astral) had to do it for them. Bugs closed for years with the excuse “we’re only volunteers.” Meanwhile, “outreach” was funded for several million a year. Not confidence inspiring. Maybe would have improved if the funds had been spent more appropriately.

Similar story with Mozilla.

▲ teh64 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Where are you getting these numbers? Looking at the PSFs Report for 2024 [0], 50% of their expenses went to pycon. Would you consider that outreach? I believe conferences are very important as part of the health of a language, and reading the definition of outreach[1], I would not classify the conference as that. The second highest amount of expenses (27.1%) went to (surprise!) "Packaging Work Group/Infrastructure/Other", i.e. pypi, pip etc... "Outreach & Education" was only 2.8% of 12.9% of expenses, i.e. 0.3612%, which is $17846 (actual dollars, not thousands like in the report.)

[0] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2024/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreach

▲

mixmastamyk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The assertions above are my memory from pre-covid, I’d look at 2019 and before perhaps. Many things changed after that (and council too) but it takes a while to change perception.

▲

teh64 an hour ago | parent [-]

In 2019 [0] they only had 2.5 million of total expenses, of which 75% was pycon. So even if everything else was on "outreach" (it was not), that would only be $642,500, which is not "several million a year".

In 2020 [1] 48.1% went to "Packaging Work Group/Infrastructure/Other" (I assume because in person pycon was canceled).

I also checked 2021 [2], which was 32.7% pycon and 31.2% pip etc...

Also 2022 [3], 57.8% pycon, 26.6% Packaging Work Group...

In 2023 [4], 60.5% pycon, and Packaging Work Group expenses decreased to 9.6% because of fastly now provides the bandwidth/hosting: "We are grateful to Fastly for making the online services that the PSF provides possible, so that we can invest time and resources into advancing our infrastructure to better meet community wants and needs."

So your assertion seems to have never been true.

[0] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2019/

[1] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2020/

[2] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2021/

[3] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2022/

[4] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2023/

▲

mixmastamyk an hour ago | parent [-]

As mentioned covid changed everything, so please stop pulling figures from that once in a lifetime event.

▲

teh64 an hour ago | parent [-]

I have looked at 2018-2016, where the expenses are almost completely the main pycon and more local pycons. Also sponserships like "Pallets group, which maintains projects such as Flask and Jinja" (2018). Everything other than the main pycon is less than 1 million dollars combined in expenses.

I feel it is important to look at the facts, not just vibes.

▲

mixmastamyk 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

A portion of pycon expenses are spent on outreach during the event. There are dedicated grants, aid, support as well.

During the 2010s, the packaging group was begging for help. "We're only volunteers," a common refrain: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46605018

During the 2020s, funding for packaging was provided by Mozilla and ZuckChan, because PSF wouldn't do enough.

As we all know, astral stepped in and solved the problem for them. I moved to their tools as soon as was possible. And not simply because they were fast, but because they work.

Here's one that they broke for my package a couple of years ago in pip, and never fixed: https://github.com/pypa/packaging/issues/774

▲

nedbat an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Also sponserships like "Pallets group ...

Those are "fiscal sponsorships" meaning the PSF holds money for other organizations. The PSF is not funding Pallets (or Boston Python or North Bay Python, etc, etc). They accept money earmarked for those organizations and provide administrative support. Details: https://www.python.org/psf/fiscal-sponsorees/

	▲	teh64 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the correction!

▲ embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know much about the Linux Foundation if I'm being honest, even though I've been a 24/7 Linux user for decades, but they seemingly don't have the same image in the ecosystem, at least not close to how people see Mozilla today.

Why is that? Is there lessons to be learned from the Linux Foundation how to actually effectively and responsibly manage that sort of money, in those types of projects?

▲ mixmastamyk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

A foundation should invest in its technology first and resist the strong temptation to fund pet projects (of leadership) with donated money.

▲ nedbat 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure what you are labeling as pet projects of leadership? Is there something the PSF is doing that you consider a pet project rather than part of their core mission?

▲ mixmastamyk an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes, outreach before investing in packaging. It’s not that outreach is bad but that packaging was crumbling.

▲ nedbat an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure how you got to "before" here. The PSF runs PyPI, organizes the Python Packaging Authority, supports sprints and standardization efforts, funds developers in residence and so on. Packaging is improving, partly because of those efforts. It's not an either/or.

▲ mixmastamyk an hour ago | parent [-]

https://devclass.com/2025/03/10/pypi-repository-takes-steps-...

    > CPython core developer Paul Moore described his involvement in the
    > packaging community and said: “it’s struggling under the weight of its own
    > popularity … the individuals involved are doing their best under what are
    > frankly near-impossible conditions.”

    > Moore questioned whether the fact that so many businesses now depend on
    > Python and PyPI meant that “maybe a purely volunteer basis simply can’t
    > work any more,” though he hoped this is not the case.

	▲	nedbat an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, it could use more funding. Glad to see that Anthropic is helping. It's still not an either/or situation. The PSF would not be fulfilling their mission if they only funded packaging until packaging was "solved" (whatever that might mean) and only then did they fund outreach.