[22:27:59] <tomprince> Probably not. pip doesn't really have an offical public interface.
[23:26:49] <r1chardj0n3s> \o/ just over a fortnight of the mess with me transferring a PyPI name without the explicit OK of the owner, I have someone telling me I should transfer a name without explicit OK of the owner even knowing the shit I got for doing it
[23:29:12] <tomprince> I don't know the background of the mess. But I think the case you are talking about now is a a reasonable request.
[23:31:01] <r1chardj0n3s> tomprince: there is no way these folk can guarantee that I won't be going against Anton's wishes
[23:31:35] <tomprince> From what I understand, anton isn't the original author of the package anyway.
[23:34:25] <r1chardj0n3s> tomprince: if the request to change ownership was coming from the original author (ie. the actual owner) then it would carry some weight. As it is, this is just some other people.
[23:35:27] <tomprince> I'm fairly certain that the original author is involved, or at least OK'd this version.
[23:38:15] <tomprince> r1chardj0n3s: Also, your response on the ticket (http://sourceforge.net/p/pypi/support-requests/386/) is rather abrupt and uniformative. It went from just needing the pypi username, to saying no, without any explanation.
[23:39:12] <r1chardj0n3s> tomprince: yeah, that was unfortunate. I was rushing through a bunch of backed-up PyPI support tasks at the time :(
[23:48:51] <tomprince> r1chardj0n3s: From what I read from the thread about the other instance, that one seems like a case where (in retrospect) it is fairly clear that transfering wasn't the right thing to do.
[23:49:19] <tomprince> From what I know of this case, I think it is fairly clearly the right thing to do to transfer.
[23:49:34] <r1chardj0n3s> thank you for your opinion
[23:50:01] <tomprince> The trick is, to come up with a procedure to differentiate the two.