Right, I'm in a similar situation at Red Hat to the one Antoine's in at Continuum Analytics - I'm not personally part of Red Hat's Python maintenance team (I used to work on internal Engineering tools, and now work on Fedora's overall developer experience), but I do sometimes spend work time helping our Python maintainers negotiate the upstream contribution and collaboration process. I also have quite a bit of leeway when it comes to getting sidetracked on upstream activities related to CPython, distutils-sig or the PSF.

Disclosing that affiliation aims to address a few things:

* it lets other community members know that Red Hat's interests are something I'm considering in community discussions - core development isn't a purely volunteer activity for me any more (and hasn't been for a number of years)
* it lets other Red Hatters know they have at least one colleague that may be able to help them out if they need particular CPython issues looked at more closely
* it (hopefully) helps nudge other commercial organisations towards the notion of either paying commercial redistributors or hiring current core developers to address their Python support needs, rather than expecting community volunteers to support their business activities for free
* inverting that last motivation, I'm hoping to help encourage commercial redistributors and other folks with a vested interest in the long term sustainability of CPython core development to engage professionally with current core contributors, and also allow their existing staff to spend work time on *becoming* core contributors

As far as more specific guidelines go, I'm thinking it may be worth including some notes on "Why might a core contributor want to publicly disclose their affiliations?" and "Why might a core contributor want to preserve their privacy?". I'm not sure exactly what that would look like yet, but I'll come up with something for the next draft.

For the final section on availability for consulting, training, and contract work, I think David makes a good point regarding folks potentially *wanting* to broadcast their availability, so I'll draft that such that "Contact via the PSF" is an option that core contributors can choose to take up. That way folks can choose between "available for direct contact" and "available for screened PSF referrals".

I'll aim to put that next draft together this coming Sunday.