what are the biggest challenges you face in setting up and maintaining local Python communities?
@lucascolley , I think the lack of replies since one week now proves that this forum is not really frequented by international communities, is it?
Plus, it is the “home forum” of PSF and affiliates basically, so some problems go unsaid. The following are real problems that I think it is worth naming.
I. funding uncertainty and lack of organisatorial support. Often, local communities have no clear support system, and have to build things by themselves. The opportunities by PSF are often not well advertised. If provided, grants remain uncertain, can stall, or can even be revoked. As in the few publicized cases over the last years (not just this year), e.g., the African events.
II. direct competition from US affiliated networks. I have seen instances first a local community builds something up with their blood and sweat, and then another group connected more closely to PSF sets something up, with financial and organisatorial backing. These two groups then compete for members, attendees, sponsors, with discussions being stalled and remaining unproductive. As a principle of operations, this implies a need to grovel for official blessing, and indirect pressures to onboard members of PSF adjacent influence networks to remain “on the good side”.
III. exclusionary mechanisms from centralized networks, for instance through soft exclusion such as lower visa mobility. For instance, people from India or Africa can usually not travel to Europe or US - and fares are even much more expensive than an average American or European would pay. Therefore, they are excluded from “flagship events” like pycon US, which has gained a distinct character that “everyone important meets here” - with the flipside that most of the world is de-facto excluded.
IV. requirement to obtain “legitimacy” from a US American organization, or loop trademark business through them. All trademarks are owned by PSF, even European or Asian ones; the example of @iqbalabd is a typical example that shows how local organization are not empowered - in terms of legal expertise or funding - to pursue their own legal interests.
A radical idea, but it could be possible to think about splitting the PSF? You could have a US-focussed ‘national Python association’, akin to the EPS, Pyvec zs, PAO, UKPA, etc that could run PyCon US and act as a legal entity for local groups in the States; and then a ‘global’ PSF that focusses on services that are not geographically restricted to any particular country.
I fully support this idea! I do not think it is radical. It is in fact, absolutely normal if you look at multinational companies or multinational charities and their org structure! The “abnormality” imo is PSF.
For instance, look at a random charity like Médecins sans Frontières. They are incorporated in all major jurisdictions. There is an umbrella in Switzerland, which holds international trademarks; legal assets and further trademarks are held by the local incorporations.
There are a few points why this is a much better idea:
- fundraising is possible in any international jurisdiction - tax exemption is usually tied to the incorporation locus of the entity. For instance, EU funders would be less likely to donate if they cannot deduct taxes.
- impartiality and neutrality - fairer representation of the international community, and lower likelihood to be influenced by US politics.
- risk diversification, e.g., the fate of the international organization not being tied to the single risk of, say, pycon US (50% of the yearly PSF budget!). Risk is also mitigated through diversified donor base, e.g., not tied to economy or political opinions of a single country (e.g., xenophobia).
- Higher international democratic legitimacy, especially if managers and decision makers are not all US based or US affiliated.