> “what code has been reviewed and which reviewers do I trust?” Thank you for putting this so succinctly. There are other supply-chain problems in decentralizi

> “what code has been reviewed and which reviewers do I trust?” Thank you for putting this so succinctly. There are other supply-chain problems in decentralizing control of the modules though: Modules might only have a few people or one person responsible for them. Consequently suspect commits by a malfeasant or compromised (hacked) team member might not be noticed. Maybe this is a variant of the old saw "with enough eyes all bugs are shallow" but my gut feeling is that commits to Python core will get more inspection than those to a small 3rd party module. Today, modules get some review for free, just by being part of stdlib. Even if I know and trust @jdoe I have less assurances that they didn't get phished and their repo tweaked. Also trusted team members/organizations may change over time. The browser extensions world is the poster child for this, where we've seen not only similarly-named malicious extensions posted to stores but also once-legitimate extensions quietly purchased and subsequently subverted by bad actors. This is one example (adware: could've been much worse): https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/-particle-chrome-extension-sold-to-new-dev-who-immediately-turns-it-into-adware/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/-particle-chr... I like the idea of a review process but I have a hard time imagining a crowd-sourced system that wouldn't get gamed. We have a "dissolution of responsibility" problem: millions of companies rely on these components but have no explicit responsibility of care. Perhaps that needs to change, somehow.