I agree with your overall characterization. As someone who works a lot with Python and is very familiar with its package ecosystem, I find the lack of leadership from PSF to be discouraging and upsetting. The past few Python releases have what I would characterize as cosmetic improvements while repeatedly missing opportunities to improve interpreter, packaging, and interface fundamentals. The position that CPython has to be kept simple as a reference implementation is untenable in the absence of an active collaboration or effort to produce a performance oriented implementation.

As far as I'm concerned, CPython as an interpreter technology has not advanced in the past decade - and Python has grown thanks to the data science community efforts and excellent library ecosystem you mention, not due to PSF. PSF can only miss so many opportunities before something comprehensively better starts to eclipse it.

I do get the impression that position is not the overwhelming consensus among CPython core devs (nor does it really make sense, given the huge dependency of many packages to the C API), whether or not it is what PSF may have publicly communicated. There are a few glimmers that interpreter improvements are on the horizon, with some proposals like subinterpreters and GIL mitigation getting a lot of attention, all which (to my knowledge) are necessary and prerequisite to serious, bold performance improvements.

I agree performance is important, and I think we have reason to be optimistic, but with the understanding that that level of improvement, even if currently underway, will just take a lot of effort and time. Meanwhile, as someone fairly new to Python and working on several performance critical pieces, I've been pretty impressed with what you can do with the current compute packages (after taking months to work my way through most of them).

> It's probably fair to suggest PSF has stumbled in executing some of their goals, most notably and publicly the transition to v3

In a recent post linked on HN, Steve Yegge basically nailed it:

> How much new software was written in something other than Python, which might have been written in Python if Guido hadn’t burned everyone’s house down? It’s hard to say, but I can tell you, it hasn’t been good for Python. It’s a huge mess and everyone is miserable.

Note to future language maintainers: don't burn everyone's house down.

I did RTFA, but I haven't been on the Python scene long enough to have a truly educated opinion about the transition to v3. It's not unusual for a language to make breaking changes in early versions. What happens when you realize you need to do it late in the game? Tough call. I think it's probably impossible to know whether cost of breaking changes in the short term (people leaving Python for Go, etc.) was justified relative to the cost of a crufty and inadequate Python in the future (people leaving Python for Go, etc.). I'm generally sympathetic, but I'm glad I didn't get into Python until the transition was well underway.

Link?

Not just the package ecosystem, but you also have to have a large number of developers and jobs, so you can do hiring. Developing a project in a non-mainstream language means more difficult hiring.