PSF Fellow Evaluation

PSF
1

I am curious if there are other factors other than the criteria detailed here: PSF Fellow Membership | Python Software Foundation that fellows are evaluated on, for example is there a limit for each quarter etc

No complaining, but there are times where nominations check one or more of the criteria but not make it to the roster, so am curious.

3 Likes
2

Thanks for raising the topic, @nanjekyejoannah! I have sent this along to the PSF Fellows WG and they are drafting some thoughts to share. A handful of them are currently busy with PyCon US, so they are planning to reply fully after the event concludes.

3

Is there a current source of information on the Fellows WG? I found https://wiki.python.org/psf/FellowWG, but it notes it is ‘in progress’ with no officers (‘TBD’).

A

4

Nominations can be found on the wiki at PythonSoftwareFoundation/FellowNominations - Python Wiki

5

People may also want to read this recent piece on the difference between the various awards we give out to get a sense of how the Fellows program fits in with the other recognitions we do.

1 Like
6

There’s also the Fellows WG Charter.

7

I’m also interested in this, particularly to understand to what extent an evaluation occurs before confirming nominations.

It’s pretty rare, but I have been surprised in the past by the confirmation of folks that I don’t think uphold the values defined in PSF CoC. Sentiment which has also been shared with me by other community members at times this issue has surfaced in discussions, so I know it’s not just my impression.

My impression at this time is that the PSF Fellow evaluation mostly focuses on contributions, rather than community building.

2 Likes
8

Given the two distinct criteria exist, perhaps there could be some note as to which an elected Fellow meets? Or perhaps at the nomination stage this could be made explicit.

A

9

My issue is not with which criteria their contribution fell under, but rather with what is, in my opinion, the failure to meet the following one:

  • Nominees should be aware of the Python community’s Code of Conduct and should have a record of fostering the community.
3 Likes
10

Apologies, I had misconstrued your point. Thank you for clarifying.

1 Like
11

No worries, happy to clarify :blush:

12

Hi Joannah, thank you for raising this topic. I forwarded it onto the Fellows Workgroup and they have several thoughts to share, copied below. I also added a couple notes from the admin perspective.

  • None of the criteria automatically ensure that a person is chosen. Instead it comes down to getting the percentage of the votes required (50%+1). For example if 5 people vote, and an individual receives 3 votes, they unfortunately don’t become a Fellow because 4 votes are needed. [0]
  • Membership on the WG is on a volunteer basis, and all WG members are balancing workload and expectations. The most recent ballot included 45 nominees which means reviewing 45+ nomination statements (some people receive multiple nominations), which can be time intensive. [1]
  • The WG strives to balance being inclusive and open to change without losing the genuine nature of PSF Fellowship. [1]
  • We are heartened to know that some of the worthy folks who may not have been selected are already members in some other form (whether Supporting or Contributing (which now includes Managing)), and at minimum have a vote in PSF matters.

The WG members share the frustration when people we think are deserving are not selected. We are reviewing the WG’s charter and processes to attempt to improve that outcome. Similar to change in other volunteer groups, updates like these take some time without a dedicated person driving them.

[0] As the Fellows WG admin, I have seen this case many times.
[1] As the Fellows WG admin, I believe this results in WG members voting for folks they 100% confidently know are deserving. Because each WG member is involved in different areas or regions of the PSF community, they may not be aware of every deserving individual.

3 Likes
13

Thank you for the useful response which gives some perspective to the process. I personally was curious so that I only nominate folks that have a higher chance to not burden the WG with nominations that cannot make it to the roaster since I have strived to tick the above criteria.

I appreciate the volunteers on the WG and understand the constraints in light of volunteer effort, thank you for your service and the willingness to review the WG charter and processes.

2 Likes