Thanks for the update! A quick read suggests it LGTM.

The one part of the proposal that I don’t think makes sense is to blur the terminology that distinguishes the clearly defined Packaging Council from the broader more loosely defined PyPA collective.

The proposed Council isn’t the PyPA, it represents the PyPA when such representation is needed, just as the SC aren’t the entire Python core development community, but they do represent it.

On that topic, something that the PEP should mention is the potential impact of the proposal on the current PSF Python Packaging Working Group (as once the Council exists, the rationale for the current Working Group structure gets substantially weaker). I don’t think the PEP needs to resolve that question, but I do think it needs to say something like:

“In the event that this PEP is accepted and an initial Python Packaging Council elected, then motions will be placed before both the existing PSF Python Packaging Working Group and the newly elected Python Packaging Council that address the future handling of the responsibilities of the Packaging Working Group listed at https://wiki.python.org/psf/PackagingWG/Charter

The exact contents of those motions will be a topic of discussion between the Working Group and Council members (along with PSF staff), rather than needing to be worked out prior to the Council election.”

Maybe we dissolve the Working Group and the PSF consults with the elected Council directly (ala the way the main SC works), or maybe we make the elected Council automatic members of the WG, or maybe we change the WG selection process to be via Council nomination, or maybe we come up with another idea. Regardless, I think the PEP should commit to having that discussion, so prospective Council members don’t get surprised when the topic comes up in the future.