The Python Package Index currently provides a feature where users can comment on individual packages. Some package maintainers are opposed to such a feature, and would like to leave activation of the feature the maintainer. Along with comments, there is also support for rating the package with a number of 0..5; this feature is not debated. This page discusses arguments in favor and against per-package comments.

Pro comments

• users posting a rating not only want to indicate whether they like or dislike the package, but also why they rated the package in the way they did.
• restricting users (not allowing them comment on certain packages) can be considered as a form of censorship
• spam is largely prevented by requiring user to login; if spam (i.e. completely unrelated comments) are made, they can be deleted.
• if users use the facility to report bugs, the package author should have more clear directions to point users to the bug reporting channels
• new comments will be emailed to the maintainers to notify them

Contra comments

• maintainers need to check one more place for discussion of the package, in addition to mailing lists and fora that they already operate; people are too lazy to research what the proper comment reporting channel is.
• if PyPI would allow individual packages to opt out of commenting, then comments would still be possible on packages that want them (or don't mind receiving them).
• if comments get posted, the maintainer should have the ability to delete comments that are inappropriate.
• preventing commenting isn't censorship; people are free to comment on as many other websites, blogs, forums, as they like... and if relevant to the package, they'll be found by Google
• Requiring spam handling to go through a central authority makes two people (author + PyPI maintainer) do the work that could be done by one... or not at all.
• "Completely unrelated" comments are only one form of spam; consider, for example the Twitter campaign urging people to post negative comments on setuptools to express a political viewpoint about its maintenance process, rather than commenting on the software itself
• The feature itself does not encourage quality comments, due to the small space and lack of formatting/editing.
• Early use of the comment feature suggests that low-quality comments are likely to be the norm: providing little useful information to users and poor feedback to package authors.

For more contra arguments, see also this Sourceforge issue with input from many package authors and community members.