Python Package Index

I have now implemented such an option as of r695.

The first time I learned of the PyPi comments is when the following comment
appeared:

"The mysqldb download address isn't set properly, outside of that the
mysql db wrapper is extremely helpful! (Blehk, 2009-10-22, points)"
[http://pypi.python.org/pypi/MySQL-python/1.2.3c1]

This is not really a bad comment. It's actually specific to the PyPI link
itself, and it was referring to a problem I didn't know existed (due to
SourceForge changes since the package release). So I fixed it and went to
leave a comment that it had been fixed... and found that I couldn't. Nor
could I remove the (now inaccurate) comment.

The situation has since been improved because package owners now can at
least reply to comments on their packages. I still them can't remove them
directly if I need to (issue request, I know). But additionally, it's yet
another forum-ish area to monitor, and I already have SourceForce forums,
MySQL forums (which mysql.com created on their own; I don't object to them,
but I don't have time to read), and the occasional random blog comment on
my blogs. So far I've gotten a grand total of one comment on one package,
so it is not exactly a major problem for me yet.

If we had the option of disabling comments, I would probably not disable
immediately, except maybe for old *releases*.

Side note: Try searching for "MySQL-python" (the exact package name) in
PyPI... Somehow search turns this into "mysqlpython" and finds nothing.

Moments ago, the following comment was added to the Django package on PyPI:

"still can not use email address as username (cornbread, 2009-09-26,
points)"

Now, this is a common question (really, it should be in the FAQ, but
that's another story). If "cornbread" had asked this question in the proper
place -- on the django-users mailing list, or on the #django IRC channel --
there'd be literally thousands of people who could direct him towards the
solution he's looking for.

But because PyPI doesn't allow me to disable comments, he's posted it
here, and I'm forced to deal with it personally.

Is this a concrete enough example?

Again: I'm offering to do the implementation of making comments optional.
Will someone commit the patch if I produce it?

This change, if kept in place, will really hurt Python itself.

PyPI already has the problem of looking like a rank and unweeded garden
that goes to seed; in fact, had I known that development still took place
on it, there are lots of features that I would already have been suggesting
to try to improve it. Think of the awful experience it gives newcomers:
they have to wade through dozens of tawdry, poorly written, alpha-state
packages that were abandoned months or years ago to find the few that the
community actually uses. One big improvement, for example, would be to hide
alpha- and beta-quality packages from search results unless the searcher
clicks a prominent "show me beta-quality packages" checkbox, or a similar
one for alpha-quality, when doing their search. Just that change would make
Python look like a much more professional language to people looking around
PyPI for their first few times.

But comments? They will look awful. Several of the few I have already seen
are poorly written and immature. The comment space will, of course, mostly
attract people who really have little idea how to maturely handle such a
forum, since otherwise they'd probably be over on the bug tracker or
mailing list of the project. The comments will also attract FUD and spam.
Moderation by project owners might possibly solve some of the issues, but
how many owners really have time? A very few packages would have
maintainers with the time and inclination to delete poor comments and try
to keep their package page looking at all professional, but think of the
terrible ugliness of the package pages where the maintainers don't have
that time!

I think this change makes a poor step in the direction of making Python
look far less professional. We are already viewed as a toy language that
some kid named after Monty Python; when people are willing to give Python a
chance and come look for a package they need, do we really want them seeing
the semi-literate ramblings of some of the least-informed Python users?

Maintaining a useful, attractive, and professional online forum requires a
lot of work, a lot of oversight, and a lot of selection — every day —
of what content remains in the system. This current incarnation of
commenting not only seems to entirely lack any kind of management mechanism
for package owners, but I don't think it's fair to impose on them the high
cost of moderating yet another forum without their consent.

Thus: the comment system should be opt-in, per package. And it should have
moderating tools built in. If censorship concerns you, leave in place a
button where readers can choose to view downrated comments.

(It might be, by the way, that some sort of community moderation, per
Stack Overflow, could work here; but given the hostility in some quarters
to Python, any sort of mechanism like that seems in danger of being
overwhelmed by hacker fanboy spammers advocating some horrible idea like
anonymous blocks. Ugh.)

Martin --

First, censorship? Really? Because I want to ensure that users actually
receive help for their issues that's "censorship"? "Censorship" is what
happens when a *government* uses control over the *press* to prevent free
speech. That's far from what's happening here; can we please avoid
polemics? Web sites are private publications, and their owners have every
right to moderate as they see fit. This isn't a free speech issue under any
legal system I'm aware of.

Second, you write that you "did not unilaterally decide to provide
[comments]. Instead, many users have requested it repeatedly." I don't
doubt that! However, I'd like you to please quantify "many" -- 10? 20? 100?
If the same number of people request that comments be made optionally will
*that* convince you?

Third, I can't tell you to simply delete all comments on the Django
package because *it's not my decision!* Django doesn't belong to me any
more than PyPI belongs to you. If I want to make a decision about how
Django's hosted, distributed, advertised, or whatever I have to run things
by the entire development community. I don't get to make unilateral
decisions.

Finally, I'd like to propose a compromise. If your concern really is over
providing users with a "right to voice an opinion" (note that no such
"right" actually exists), how about this: allow package owners to disable
comments, but only if they provide a link to an alternate forum. I'll even
write this feature myself; all you have to do is deploy it.

Deal?

Martin,

What is your big objection to enabling package authors to flip a switch
and disable comments per-package with a message showing "this package has
elected not to receive comments" or some other wording of your choice?

I'd wager that only packages with existing discussion infrastructure would
bother to do this...

Chris

I don't claim that PyPI "belongs" to me, but I certainly don't believe that
it "belongs" to the package maintainers. Instead, the users of the packages
(YOUR users) also have a right to voice an opinion, and I'm opposed to any
censorship that you want to apply. Notice that each PyPI page contains
already text that you didn't author, such as the side bar and the footer.
In the way comments are rendered, I doubt that any reader would assume that
the comments come from the package author, so there is no confusion as to
who is author of what piece of the page.

As for specific comments that you have on your package, please confirm
that you don't want the comments on the Django 1.1 release, and I'll ask
the authors to remove them (AFAICT, you haven't received comments on any
other package yet).

If your primary concern is that the comments appear on the same page, I
could provide an option to render them into a separate page.

I also would like to point out that I did not unilaterally decide to
provide that very feature. Instead, many users have requested it
repeatedly.

Honestly, this situation makes me very angry. PyPI doesn't belong to you,
Martin; it belongs to *us*, the package maintainers. I don't want comments
on my packages. It's as simple as that. Either you respect my wishes or
not. I don't see why you should get to unilaterally decide how a core piece
of community functionality should works.

I've given you other more concrete reasons which you disagree with; that's
your right. I think you're wrong that these are hypothetical problems --
there are already support requests showing up in comments, for one. If you
do some research into CPAN's experience with comments, or PEAR's, you'll
see a pretty solid trend-line. I don't see why the Python community ought
to be different.

But in the end, it doesn't matter. I'm asking for my package pages to not
have comments. Please respect my wishes.

As a package maintainer, I have full control over all the information
displayed on my package pages... except the comments. I'd be equally angry
if I was unable to edit my own packages descriptions, or titles, or
metadata. Why are comments any different?

Martin, I think we're all trying to solve the problems before they occur
and make less work for you while you seem intent on making more work for
yourself ;-)

I really would still like the ability to say "this package has elected not
to receive comments". I already maintain mailing lists and issue trackers
for most of the packages I have on PyPI and would prefer to only have to
support one way of handling feedback.

Sure, the email notifications will help, but all they'll result in is
support issues from me saying "please remove this comment now that I've
directed them to the right forum". It just seems to be making more work for
everyone :-(

jacobian: these are perhaps problems, but I don't think they need to be
solved right now:
1. are people *actually* commenting on your packages in a way you dislike,
or is that a mere possibility? If the former, I would like to know what
package and what comment you are talking about. If the latter, I see no
reason to solve something that is merely a potential problem, but not a
real one. In any case, you don't need to check at these places, as you will
get an email notification.
3. Again, I think this is a theoretical problem. In the only case where a
support request was actually filed, it was resolved quickly as the poster
of the comment withdrew it even without any intervention on my side.

As for 2., I now do see this as a problem, as maintainers *actually*
wanted to reply to comments, rather than merely theoretically. So I have
now added a facility to follow up to comments; please try it out.

Marin: okay, you want some problems to solve? Here they are:

1. I don't want to allow people to comment on my packages on PyPI. Past
history has shown that people will ask for help in the strangest of places;
I don't want yet another place I have to check.

2. Not allowing package owners to respond is seriously fucked up. It means
that people can post whatever criticism they want, and I, as the owner,
have no mechanism to respond.

3. Filing a support request is not a valid mechanism to moderate or
control these comments. What if you're on vacation? What if you decide not
to remove the comment?

It comes down to this: packages I post on PyPI belong to *me*, not to you.
You don't get to decide these policies by fiat. I know you think this is a
good idea, but please accept that many disagree with you. Give us the
choice.

I'm sorry if I this comes off ranty, but I am angry. PyPI is one of those
things we're effectively forced to use as part of being a good Python
citizen, and it really pisses me off to see stuff like this bunged into it
without any discussion, and then to have criticism dismissed as being
"without foundation."

As if on cue, some called Jensens has posted an abusive comment on the PIL
package:

http://pypi.python.org/pypi/PIL/1.1.6

Indeed, to further echo what Doug has said, my experience of every site
that has offered this kind of functionality (from the Support Requests and
the like on SourceForge, through numerous attempts at soliciting feedback
on content on zope.org, various pages on plone.org and generally anything
that offers an unmoderated text addition service) is that it will get
misused by people too lazy to find the correct forum to ask their question
through to downright abuse by people either spamming or deliberately
leaving negative comments about software their have other motives for
downvoting than any genuine negative experience of the package.

However, Martin, I do understand where you're coming from which is why I'm
more than willing to have "This package has elected not to accept user
comments" sprayed across the bottom of packages that have chosen not to
allow commenting.

I have no problem with the numeric ratings.

In the meantime, I have no choice but to raise a tracker issue here in the
event of any comments being added which aren't to do with rating the
package :-( I do hope the email notifications of comments to package owners
are working...

My apologies to Richard, I did not realize he was involved because I've
only been discussing this issue with Martin.

The problem is you are assuming that users visiting PyPI will understand
that the only types of comments they should leave are ratings. My
experience on other established sites is that they will leave any sort of
question, comment, bug report, or whatever else they want to say.

Opening a new support ticket every time this happens is entirely
impractical, but if you refuse to accept any input on this then I guess
that's what I'll have to do.

Doug: it is not the case that you cannot do anything about it. If you find
a comment you dislike, make a support request to remove it. It is, strictly
speaking, also not the case that I'm the sole developer of PyPI. Richard
Jones is also a developer, and the primary author of this software.

I understand that package authors may dislike the feature, but I believe
these concerns are without any foundation; I'm not willing to act until
there is an actual problem to solve. I think there is a misconception that
PyPI is primarily to support the package authors: primarily, it serves the
people who actually use all these package. They have repeatedly requested
this very feature, and made it explicit that they want, in particular, to
leave comments of dislike of a specific package (rather than just a
downvote). So I'm not willing to refuse them their right to voice their
opinions.

The comment feature cannot become a discussion forum because as an owner of
a package I am not allowed to comment on it. That means anyone can post
whatever message they want, and I can't do a thing about it.

Martin, as sole maintainer of PyPI you have great power over the
developers who list their packages there. I can't *not* register a package
I want to work with easy_install or pip because that's the only place they
go to find packages. That means I'm at your mercy on this. I think the
whole idea of comments on PyPI is bad, but I'm not going to tell other
developers they shouldn't use the feature if they want it. I just want an
off switch.