There’s a history of people advancing minority views getting “pecked half to death” on this forum. I know a bunch who won’t post here at all anymore, on any topic (Steve Holden announced as much publicly, and has kept to his word, apart from a brief appearance in the topic memorializing Michael Foord). I’ve been trying to stick to purely technical topics, because I’m weary too of needless drama.
It’s pretty clear to me that Franz’s account would have been suspended already if he weren’t currently running for the Board (the optics of silencing a candidate would be poor). For saying which I wouldn’t be surprised to get piled on either.
So I’ll drop it. Not saying their are “Franz supporters” who fear to speak up here, am saying it would be wholly understandable to me if there are. They wouldn’t speak up here, period, not even to answer your question about why they won’t.
Sure, that’s possible. I’d be interested to read their opinions anywhere. Surely the PSF and the “Python mob” are not so domineering and spiteful that Franz’ supporters are afraid to appear anywhere? Are we that bad?
Oh, I see all sorts of stuff that never shows up here. But these are on private mailing lists, where everyone tries to live by the Golden Rule and the principle of charity, and baiting, sniping, trolling, and passive-aggressive games are conspicuous by absence. I think of it as being “adult”, but at my age that’s decades beyond what the word means to most people .
If they want to endure the drama of making their views public (it would be just as bad if, e.g., they posted publicly on “social media”, although they’d be less likely to get those accounts suspended), they will. Until then, such lists don’t solicit new members, or advertise their existence. They’re not looking for popularity, and have no agenda to “sell”.On one such list, there has been lively discussion about Kiraly’s stated goals. Are they “Kiraly supporters”? Don’t know. The focus there is on ideas, not personalities.
This forum might be difficult, and there might be unnecessary drama. But I don’t see it as a place that prioritizes personalities over ideas. There are plenty of ideas being discussed here.
This very thread was about the idea of the PSF and its relationship to local organizations. Maybe we should stick to that instead of devolving this thread into grievances.
I’m trying to give Franz every opportunity to discuss his idea without drama, but he seems incapable of it, and there are no supporting voices here or links provided to other places where they have spoken. Perhaps there is a secret society of supporters someplace, unwilling for whatever reason to speak publicly. That doesn’t bode well for his candidacy or for his federation.
Yes, this is descending into meta-drama, which I stick to mailing lists now to avoid. On those, there is never a meta-discussion about whether the topic at hand “should be” discussed.
And you’re right! By this forum’s lights, my digression was “off topic”, although in response to your “off topic digression” about why Franz’s supporters (if any) are invisible. Which in turn was in response to Franz’s “off topic digression” about this forum’s social dynamics.
I’ll do my part to break the cycle by just shutting up now .
The idea of a federation of Python organizations around the world is not new and in fact already exists to some extent as mentioned earlier in this topic. There are several independent Python supporting organizations in various regions of the world and the number keeps growing.
The twist to Adam’s idea of splitting the PSF you quoted was more about risk management than anything else.
Leaving aside all the positive effects of having the PSF run the PyCon US conference, it does pose a significant risk to the original role of having the PSF protect and secure the IP in Python. We basically replaced the “what if Guido gets hit by a bus” (one of the motivating factors in founding the PSF) with “what if the PSF goes bankrupt as a result of PyCon US budgets failing”.
Separating out the IP rights into a new org could help reduce such risks, while the PSF as a US non-profit would be able to continue running everything else as usual, including PyCon US.
My memory is a little different. We absolutely wanted a solid corporation to hold the IP rights, but … there was also significant desire to run Python events less costly to attend than the ones CNRI ran, which weren’t luxurious, but reflected much more the “professional budgets” of government-funded groups (CNRI’s chief clients) than impecunious hobbyists, fans, and students.
And, yup! That proved easier wished for than achieved, and it seemed we were always just one PyCon away from plausible bankruptcy.
I was actually happy to see that the PSF was solid enough to absorb small losses from some recent PyCons (although that’s “small” in comparison to what running PyCon cost, not in comparison to, e.g., the grants budget).
But it would be good to secure the IP rights independent of PyCon finances, via a legally distinct corporation. Risk management is vital for the long term.
Local Python orgs around the world, and the PSF was split to have a discussion without the baggage of this thread. I’ve moved some messages from there that continued to discuss this topic back to this topic.
For the record, neither of those statements is true. (But of course it’s not related to what I said about the local org, and if you want to exclude me you can easily find true facts about me that are much “worse”.)
.
.