[woodruffw]

You've pointed to a stub document that basically explains Python packaging and why pip comes with Python (which, notably, distributions are fond of breaking).

This doesn't somehow imply that Python has a top-down authority structure where the PSF dictates the development flow of PyPI, pip, or any other official/semi-official/blessed tooling or infrastructure. That's not how Python works as a community.

The PSF is also not complaining here about pip's shortcomings. I'm the only one here and I don't represent the PSF, nor am I complaining: I think pip is great. I'm trying to explain (apparently unsuccessfully) why pip (and PyPI's) behavior isn't always 100% congruous with a single stream of development thinking. As mentioned above there are more optimal structures given different kinds of governance and community, but this one aligns with the (IMO good) values that the Python community espouses.

[LtWorf]

I think the PSF has the means and opportunity to say "please don't use xxx, use yyy instead". Which is why conda and linux distributions are not seen on the same footing at all.

[woodruffw]

I think it's more because Conda has explicitly positioned itself for a specific domain (scientific Python) and because Linux distributions aren't operating at the same level of specificity. The success of uv has demonstrated that Python packaging tools don't need PSF or PyPA affiliation to be extremely popular; they just have to be good.

But this final claim is essentially right: PSF can suggest things, and the community will (to some extent) accept those suggestions as blessed. But this doesn't mean that the PSF can dictate what would essentially be a significant breaking change to pip's behavior.