@offby1 @hynek @glyph @coderanger The PSF would ask other cloud providers (Amazon, Google Cloud, etc) for emergency help to offset bandwidth costs.
Financially, they'd run out of cash in 30 to 60 days to fund it. Maybe less if the provider tried to tell them, they were 60 or 90 days behind, which other providers have done with other orgs.
They are already pretty minimally staffed, so I worry more about the personnel shift, which I suspect they would get enough volunteers to pull off.
@offby1 @hynek @glyph @coderanger When I was on the board and the Treasurer I brought this up several times a year. At the time, people feared bringing it up to our CDN out of fear they might re-review the arrangement, which, to me, was a really naive way of viewing it.
I'm happy/ecstatic that attitude changed, and they have a five-year deal now. That tells me the organization grew the fuck up, which has always been the bigger institutional threat.
@webology
Extremely this. Doesn't hurt that Fastly got a very good open source person heading their developer relations team this year
@offby1 @hynek @glyph @coderanger
@chrisjrn @webology @offby1 @hynek @coderanger re: how do you come back from that… I actually worry less about this. It is an immediate, obvious problem that can be solved pretty straightforwardly, and any corporate sponsor stepping into the gap to cover those bandwidth costs can expect an immediate and significant PR benefit. Picking up long-term engineer salary obligations for a tool that mostly kinda works right now is a much harder sell on every level
@chrisjrn @webology @offby1 @hynek @coderanger also given the immediate brand damage that Fastly would sustain if they pulled their support, I believe the folks that would advocate internally to keep the program running will not have difficulty doing so. It’s probably not *fair* that the reward for years of donations is getting blamed for the immediate crisis in the aftermath of the well running dry, but so it goes.
@glyph
In a vacuum, your argument makes sense. I think you've seen enough second order effects of things the PSF has done to know that there would be significant second order effects to deal with under time pressure.
@webology @offby1 @hynek @coderanger
@chrisjrn @webology @offby1 @hynek @coderanger I stand by the fundamentals of my analysis but I somewhat intentionally glossed over the 7 or so people who would sustain permanent life-altering psychological trauma and probably exit the industry after this and the thousands who would be engulfed in all-consuming Internet Drama for weeks or months, leading to hundreds of millions of dollars of lost productivity across the industry
@glyph
Stop assuming rational well-informed actors, Glyph
@webology @offby1 @hynek @coderanger
@glyph @chrisjrn @webology @offby1 @hynek @coderanger FWIW, I think there's absolutely a way that this can be a graceful changeover -- it's not necessary that moving away from Fastly would be disruptive to PyPI users. It's not a given that they'd pull support without sufficient notice such that it requires a panicked/immediate response.
They could just be like "Hey, in 6 months, we're gonna stop providing this for free" -- there'll be work to do but it can end up being fine?
@pradyunsg @glyph @chrisjrn @webology @hynek @coderanger sure, but a successful outcome still hinges on corporate generosity. Astral dropping uv or enshittifying it leaves us in control of our own destiny.
@pradyunsg @glyph @chrisjrn @webology @offby1 @hynek @coderanger
In fact, it is to my understanding based on the below clip of Fastly's sponsor spot announcement at PyCon US this year that there is a contract of some kind that commits to 5 years of support, which is fantastic.
@offby1 @pradyunsg @glyph @chrisjrn @webology @hynek @coderanger
Not for nothing, but we've been very careful about not tying anything tied to one corporate org into PyPI's external footprint. So yes, we use Fastly, but we could switch without it impacting users.
This is basically the opposite of client side tools, where migrations take 10+ years.
@offby1 @pradyunsg @glyph @chrisjrn @webology @hynek @coderanger
Just take a look at how long it took to break the "lock in" that setuptools had, and afaict uv doesn't _appear_ to be engaging the standards processes (I could have missed it!), which feels kinda very old Microsoft, "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".
@dstufft @pradyunsg @glyph @chrisjrn @webology @hynek @coderanger in fairness to Astral, the packaging standards process has broken many a spirit over the years. I'm not surprised they'd consider just doing the thing and letting the userbase sort out whether it makes sense.
@offby1 @dstufft @pradyunsg @glyph @chrisjrn @webology @hynek @coderanger
Astral folk are very much engaging in packaging PEP discussions on d.p.o. For example, Charlie is one of the most frequent posters on the recent lockfiles topic:
https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-751-lock-files-again/59173/239 They were also at the packaging summit this year at PyCon US.
@chrisjrn @glyph @webology @offby1 @coderanger Classic Glyph
@hynek @chrisjrn @webology @offby1 @coderanger it me, “rational actor — will respond to incentives for food”
