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.

	▲	mixmastamyk 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't say either/or, and was talking about priorities. You don't install a fancy roof when the foundation is crumbling. > 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. But they did the opposite. So they still didn't fulfill it, astral had to.