Does the PSF plan to violate US federal anti-discrimination laws?

[Rosuav (Chris Angelico)]

@mikeshardmind

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.

Yes. That is all completely non-controversial. It’s the other aspects of it that are political.

[mikeshardmind (Michael H)]

While I would agree that it should be noncontroversial, the actions the PSF took here were in direct response to funding being conditioned on terms that are hostile to inclusivity.

I’m not sure what you’re considering to be “other aspects” here, my understanding of the PSFs actions, their statement, and the current observable behavior of the administration in charge of the grant funding along with the language they are conditioning funding upon is that the PSF had a choice between maintaining inclusivity and money, and chose inclusivity while being transparent about the decision.

[nedbat (Ned Batchelder)]

It seems like we’re back to debating hypothetical stances that the PSF hasn’t taken?

Can we at least clarify precisely what it is we’re discussing? Or maybe set aside hypotheticals. We all seem to agree that the recent PSF actions were good.

[storchaka (Serhiy Storchaka)]

@Rosuav

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?

Is some other country setting a financial trap for the PSF?

Imagine that the PSF took the money. And took the money the next year. And after the money was spent, men in suits come to them and demand the 3 million back. Because for a technical position for which four men and one woman applied, the PSF chose a woman. And one of the rejected male candidates believes that it was because she was a woman, not because she was better.

[nedbat (Ned Batchelder)]

Chris has clarified that the recent PSF withdrawal is not the kind of stand he is talking about. Unless I’m mistaken, everyone in this post agrees the PSF did the right thing.

[Rosuav (Chris Angelico)]

@nedbat

Unless I’m mistaken, everyone in this post agrees the PSF did the right thing.

Yep. Some people are saying the PSF should have gone further, which I disagree with, but I’m pretty sure everyone here agrees (even if for different reasons) that rejecting this grant was correct.

[tim.one (Tim Peters)]

@tim.one

@jamestwebber

If that legislation was the inspiration for the PSF’s mission statement then it was very political indeed.

Possibly, but it didn’t seem so at the time, and got no significant pushback I can recall.

I should clarify that. While the addition to the mission statement got little pushback, adopting a “Diversity Statement” not much later was divisive:

Diversity

The mission statement itself was so vague just about anyone could read just about anything into it. Alas, that’s in part “a feature” of mission statements: you want to make them as broad (aka vague) as possible so as not to jeopardize 501(c)(3) status by deviating from them later.

Following up with “more words” spurred concern that the PSF would lose its focus on its original mission statement, which was a brief nod to Article III (Purpose) of the PSF’s Articles of Incorporation:

Python Software Foundation: Articles of Incorporation

That’s the basis on which the PSF gained 501(c)(3) status. There’s nothing about “community building” in that, and some never wanted to go beyond the originally stated purposes.

[Lucas_Malor]

@tim.one

If the PSF wasn’t on their “target radar” before, it is now

@storchaka

This was an obvious trap

And this triggers the conspiracy theorist that’s in me. Maybe the US government had no real intention to give money to Python. They know that PSF never agreed. It was a perfect chess move: if the PSF accepted, not only it will be criticized for it, but probably he would have to pay for breaking the rules, as Serhiy pointed out.

On the contrary, if PSF refused as it did, people will complain about the missing opportunity and some people that are not in good relationship with the PSF will react to attack it.

The move was clever, but it failed. It seems to me that the Python community is like the ancient Greek: we are all divided and we have a lot of different opinions, but, when we are attacked, we showed we are a solid unit.

[jamestwebber (James Webber)]

Thus far there has been no evidence that the administration is clever or strategic or playing high-dimensional chess about anything.

[Lucas_Malor]

@jamestwebber

Thus far there has been no evidence that the administration is clever or strategic

Eheh. Yeah. But this a matter of what you think it’s “clever” ;-)

The problem is, if I have to really discuss about it, I should make a political post. I have really little interest about it.

Moreover, I’m not a US citizen, so I feel less “allowed” to discuss about a government that is foreign to me – even if USA governments had and still have a strong political influence in my country. Other US people here discussed about thir goverment, and I agree with them. I leave to them the difficult task to freely talk about it.

The only thing I’m sure is that I’m proud about the PSF decision, and it seems to me that all people in this thread have the same opinion.

The rest doesn’t really matters to me.