The PSF needs funding to continue its operations, and the lack of this grant will have a significant negative effect. Drawing attention to this fact is what organizations do when they need their communities to step up and provide funding.
28 Likes
A lot of valuable work could have been done with those grant funds. I think itâs pretty reasonable (in fact, arguably the only responsible thing) for the PSF to avoid jumping to generalized conclusions early and instead continue the process until it becomes completely clear that thereâs no viable path forward. It seems like thatâs what happened.
36 Likes
And to that point, the announcement has led to a fair amount of fundraising. Not $1.5M worth, but I wouldnât be surprised if it had reached six figures at this point. Iâve seen multiple posts from people matching donations.
On the other hand, it also serves as an advertisement about PSF values, and might attract organizations who share those values. An organization like the Carpentries[1] might be wary of working with a group that capitulated to such demands.
which also declined an NSF grant and also needs donations âŠď¸
21 Likes
Hi Tim,
You are correct, it was not obvious that the DEI restrictions would apply to the entire organization from the start. Unlike the grants being canceled, our proposal was for straightforward security work, with nothing that even a very creative reading could describe as âDEIâ. That said, of course we monitored news related to NSF grants, and so we were on the lookout for problematic terms and conditions.
We felt we owed it to the community to get full information on what exactly would be applied to us before we self-selected out of the process. Not to mention it was a very new and fluid situation, to say the least, and it didnât feel sensible to assume that circumstances would continue from one month to another without changing.
41 Likes
I donât recall advancing any such here. I do have some, but didnât mention them, mostly related to how low the current US admin would sink to impose its ideology. Iâll spell one out below.
For the rest, yes, I had questions, and raised them. @Loren quite graciously addressed them directly.
I retain concerns about âpicking your battlesâ. Coming out openly as an Enemy of the State⢠brings risks too, not just praise. The PSF is a small organization. Iâve suggested before, e.g., that those keen to fight the current US adminâs abuses consider supporting the ACLU. They have an annual budget more like US$400 million, and a nationwide network of lawyers ready to volunteer their expertise and time. Opposing government abuses is what they do.
The IRS is particular has been used as a political weapon before (against both âright wingâ and âleft wingâ tax-exempt charities). An October 2025 national security directive (NSPM-7) instructs the Treasury Department and IRS to use their existing authorities to pursue investigations related to âdomestic terrorismâ.
Am I suggesting thatâs likely to target the PSF? No. Am I suggesting thatâs possible? Yes. âBut that would really be a stretch!â doesnât dissuade zealots pushing their agenda.
2 Likes
I honestly think just stating it publicly and firmly is the only possible action from the PSF. Transparency above all. It was not a secret that PSF applied, all that has to be published. It would not be a secret (I guess) to know that the grant was awarded.
If the PSF would have silently refused it and not mentioned, why, there are already people who would immediately jump on the Foundation and the board with the âyou stupid morons, passed on that opportunity and you have not told us WHY? You should be fired immediatelyâ.
This would have - inevitably - happened looking at the conversations before the elections.
So PSF did what was best - applied the transparency. Look at the statement - it does not criticise anyone positions or âpoint of viewâ - PSF does not go to a battle with anyone. PSF simply states that with those conditions, despite the expected gains, it is not able to accept the grant and take the risk connected with accepting the grant and explains why (both - endangering the mission and true financial risk are the factors)
Accepting whatever donation is always risky when there are strings attached, especiallly strings that you do not like and have no control of interpretation of it and do not know who, when and why will pull the strings. Then your assets might turn into liabilities. And being transparent and writing about it in a post - why PSF could increase the budget by 25% even if it had the opportunity, is the right thing to do.
21 Likes
Why? Just taking a guess, but maybe because itâs important to take a stand? Any suggestion that the PSF shouldnât because itâs primarily a technical organization is short-sighted. IMO, the PSF absolutely did the right thing here, including the way they chose to âmake such a public display.â
And conflating the incivility and vindictiveness of the two major political parties in the U.S. is certainly an interesting choice when one side is actively trying to roll back progress and dismantle our rights.
3 Likes
I would greatly prefer it if the PSF did not get pressured into taking a stand on political issues. The PSF is not a political group. Why do you say itâs short-sighted?
Pick literally any other political issue currently facing some country that people use Python in (which is, any country in the world). Should the PSF take a stand on that issue too? If so, why? Itâs not a political organization.
You have a strong opinion on this issue. Cool. Thatâs fine. It doesnât mean that itâs right for a technical organization to make an explicit statement on the subject.
3 Likes
The PSF already had the language in their mission statement, and 10 years ago that wording would hardly have been considered political, but now simply stating that they will not seek funding that might hurt their mission statement is very political.
I honestly donât consider it very political (being nice should and providing equal opportunity to all should be beyond politics), but Iâm not American, and overall I support the PSF using their power as a big technical organization to push for other things that align with its goals.
4 Likes
The PSFâs statement was that they withdrew a grant application because the terms of the grant are in conflict with their values. It is completely appropriate for any organization of any charter to do that. A âtechnicalâ organization is no different.
The PSF made no statement about the governmentâs policies as a whole, about the government itself, about what other organizations should do, how people should vote, etc, etc. There was nothing overtly political. They said they canât accept a grant because the terms conflict with their values.
Surely you arenât arguing that a technical organization shouldnât have values?
To my ears, when someone says the PSF (or any group of people) âshouldnât be politicalâ, what they mean is, âI disagree with your values.â The PSFâs values are strongly held and overwhelmingly supported by the PSF members. I hope we donât use this thread to debate those values.
The PSF did the right thing to withdraw the grant application, and did the right thing to factually describe the situation publicly.
27 Likes
I was replying to this:
Which is a far stronger statement than simply âweâre not taking this moneyâ, which, as I have stated above, I see no problem with.
2 Likes
OK, I am glad to hear that your âexplicit statementâ wasnât referring to anything the PSF has said. We should all stick to discussing what has happened rather than veering off into hypotheticals.
I was pleased about the measured tone of the PSFâs blog post.
8 Likes
I am 
, but more relevantly was on the Board that voted in that revision of the mission statement. It wasnât considered to be âpoliticalâ at all at the time, more like 15 years ago: Hereâs the relevant Board meeting minutes:
But at least 4 of us then had âbeing nice and providing equal opportunity to allâ in mind. Thatâs much the same as the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 had in mind (which the current US admin appeals to). The change was adopted enthusiastically and unanimously.
Itâs going beyond âequalityâ to âequityâ thatâs highly political. Largely because of the directions the PSF took from there, three of the Directors at the time (David Mertz, Raymond Hettinger, and Steve Holden) relinquished PSF Fellow status. Iâm one of only two who still posts here at times.
The role of âaffirmative actionâ programs has always been highly contentious in the US. US courts generally supported them, but under the understanding that they can indeed violate the Civil Rights Act of 1994, but that there was compelling societal benefit to be gained when (a) their intent was remedial, and (b) they were intended to be temporary measures.
Which is another dimension of why itâs highly political: should courts be able to say âwell, ya, this violates laws Congress enacted, but we think itâs fine anywayâ?
That wouldnât fly at all in, e.g., Japan, but has its own highly charged political history in the US.
There arenât easy answers here. Note that the PSFâs mission statement doesnât mention "equalityâ or âequityâ specifically. Thereâs really nothing in the mission statement itself to object to. Which probably means it was too vague to begin with, for which I bear some responsibility 
.
Of course they can, and I donât believe Iâve seen anyone here say the PSF should not have withdrawn the grant proposal. Everyone appears to agree it was too much a risk to accept the money in the current political environment. âDiscretion is the better part of valorâ may nevertheless still apply.
6 Likes
âAppeals toâ only in the most cynical, disingenuous sense imaginable. Theyâve been trying to destroy that law for 60 years. If that legislation was the inspiration for the PSFâs mission statement then it was very political indeed.
3 Likes
I donât really understand what the appeal of being non-political would be here.
Merely existing is political in the current state of the world (and it shouldnât be), and we shouldnât allow that classification to mean we canât have standards that are inclusive or bow to those who would go try and push that politics is a dirty word, then classify everything they can as political.
6 Likes
Should the PSF take a stance on other issues too, or only ones that are relevant to you personally? And if the PSF takes a strong position on myriad issues, how will it have time to do anything else?
2 Likes
I think it should take a stance on any issue that impacts its mission and operation, such as this one. Indeed, there isnât any way around itâas @mikeshardmind says, merely existing is a stance. Taking no position is still a political act.
7 Likes
Possibly, but it didnât seem so at the time, and got no significant pushback I can recall.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an inspiration to me, but thatâs just me - I canât speak to other directorsâ motivations at the time,.
But even I didnât have it in mind as such at the time. âEqual opportunity for allâ is mostly just a corollary of the Golden Rule to me.
2 Likes
Inclusivity is table stakes, and technically relevant, as creating a monoculture creates blindspots in various places, from documentation, to localization at a bare minimum, with much more beyond that when you actually examine it. It also impacts the number of allowable contributors to open source.
There is no abstaining from this issue in general, but also not in the specific case where it involved an in progress grant application. Taking the funding, not taking it silently, and not taking it publicly all send different messages, whether explicitly or not.
5 Likes
I certainly hope that someday all of this stuff is common sense and non-controversial, but right now itâs a bit dicey.
4 Likes