2FA, whether TOTP or physical, comes with a per-user support burden for any organization that enforces it, because there must be a human-in-the-loop mechanism t

2FA, whether TOTP or physical, comes with a per-user support burden for any organization that enforces it, because there must be a human-in-the-loop mechanism to handle "my 2FA devices were all destroyed/stolen, and others depend on me having access to my account." PyPI isn't exempt from this, despite mitigating with multiple 2FA devices, and says as much in the announcement https://pypi.org/security-key-giveaway/ https://pypi.org/security-key-giveaway/ - > Without multiple 2FA options, effect of losing a 2FA method results in the need to fully recover an account, which is burdensome and time-consuming both for maintainers and PyPI administrators. Enabling multiple 2FA methods reduces the potential disruption if one is lost. So there's a huge practical difference to PyPI of enforcing 2FA for all vs. enforcing for <1% of projects. I don't envy their position, and it's a reasonable compromise IMO. That said, it's absurd that PyPI didn't make more clear in the announcement linked above that TOTP apps are allowed. There's literally not an FAQ about the most important FAQ. They very well could have avoided the reaction from OP, and this entire debacle, with more thoughtful messaging.