Cross-posting per advice:
6 Likes
I’m an organizer of Boston Python and can describe our relationship to the PSF, but I expect the intent here was to get ideas for international local communities not US communities.
The PSF is our fiscal sponsor, which sounds like we get money from them, but that’s not what the term means. The PSF holds money for us that we raise ourselves, so that we can piggy-back on their non-profit status. It lets people contribute to us tax-free without us having to be a non-profit ourselves. We get no funds from the PSF.
Things the PSF (or other organizations) could do for us:
- Direct potential sponsors our way
- Publicize us as a venue for traveling speakers
- Publicize us for potential attendees, though I doubt people looking for Python events would find the PSF before they find us anyway.
13 Likes
I am co-founder of the Python Düsseldorf Meeting, a local user group in Germany, and have been chair of the EuroPython Society (EPS) for a number of years, the organization behind EuroPython.
Local user group: There is no relationship between our user group and the PSF and I frankly don’t see how the PSF could help. We have to source things locally and a far away US organization would not be able to help much with this.
EPS: The PSF has been helpful in contributing to the EuroPython finaid program for many years, which has helped not so much the EPS, but rather the attendees of EuroPython who had a need for financial support in order to attend the conference. It’s a good way for the PSF to implement their mission by delegating such funding to other organizations world wide.
I am also running the Python events calendars team, which is meant to provide a way for local user groups and conference to spread the word about their activities. This is used on the python.org and pycon.org websites to provide infos about current and future events.
If you are an event or user group organizer, please have a look at the resources posted in Python Event Announcement Resources - #4 by malemburg
IMO, it’s a good idea for event organizers to set up their own legal entities closer to where they operate. This does take some effort, but will create a more sustainable network of Python organizations around the world to help support the community activities in the long run.
15 Likes
I co-founded PyCons in Japan and Malaysia and now I’m helping out on the board of Python Asia Organization (PAO), a regional non-profit organization mainly for East and South East Asia communities to work together, following a similar model to the EuroPython Society (EPS).
The PSF has been helping local communities around our region mainly from the grants, and also legitimacy. We’ve been encouraging all communities to request for grants from the PSF, partly because we want them to be heard, and partly because we want them to know about the PSF. The grants help communities here by giving more head room for organizers to have travel grants and making events affordable for groups like students. Having the PSF on our supporters list also help organizers talk to local businesses and other local organizations for support by giving legitimacy.
In Japan, we’ve had a case where the word “Python” was trademarked by a potential bad actor. The PSF, through its Trademarks WG (which I am also currently part of) took action and the trademark was struck off. This event sparked fears within the community in Japan that Python might not be able to be freely used.
In the current discussion that we’re having about divesting the PSF assets to local groups, I think we’re missing this part: How do we protect the trademark? Local organizers do not have the experience or financial strength to fight off attempts at trying to take over the trademarks that we have. Keeping trademarks intact needs a concentrated effort. For example, the 2-snakes logo cannot be diluted in such a way that we can’t defend it as a trademark at all. If every community has a say in how the trademarks are used, then we will dilute it because there is no one “central” authority to do the work of keeping these intellectual property intact and protected for everyone else.
Having said that, on our side of the world, we have since a few years ago decided to try not to have too much reliance on the PSF especially on finances. That is why we’re having PAO: To have some sort like a cooperative, we we share sharable resources, and do the rest on our own.
Things the PSF (or other organizations) could do for us:
- Approving more percentage of grants, when and if they can
- More opportunities to attend PyCon US for community members from this side of the world. PyCon US still is one conference which we learn a lot from
- Organizing program like how to handle Code Of Conduct incidents, and opportunities for community members on this side of the world to participate. We can then propagate that in our own timezone.
- Promote our regional communities to interested sponsors in the US (i.e point them to PAO)
Like Marc, I also believe that communities should set up their own legal entities closer to where they operate. It gives them an impetus to work together and solve common problems instead of working in silos and only looking at the PSF as a source of financial aid. Being a US-based non-profit and bound to the laws of the US, policies of the PSF might also not work for some communities.
A problem though is figuring out which problems are “our” problems and we can strive to find a solution, while others are beyond our scope and should be left to the PSF (i.e trademarks).
20 Likes
I’m currently a board member of Pyvec, z.s., a local non-profit that doesn’t organize anything by itself, but supports volunteers who do. The main purpose is being a “fiscal sponsor” as mentioned above – that is, getting money from sponsors to organizers, with all the right invoicing and accounting. So if you ask who “organizes” PyCon CZ or Pyvo meetups, and you mean “what should be on the invoice”, we’ll mention the nonprofit rather than the person running around and booking venues. (Though the person is frequently a member of the organization, too.)
For larger (for us) events like PyCon CZ, we ask PSF and EPS for grants, and are grateful that they can channel some of the money from multinational sponsors to smaller (for them) events.
I don’t think the PSF can do much more for us.
When we discussed this, Some were a bit surprised that in the US, and you want sponsoring/accounting for an individual city meetup, you go to the PSF – to us, PSF is for country-level events :)
6 Likes
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.
This is unlikely to happen for many reasons, but is a sketch of how a different future for the PSF could play out.
A
5 Likes
We already separate out the technical direction of the language which is overseen by a global group of Core CPython Developers. The Core developers elect a Steering Council to foster community discussions and make decisions together. The PSF supports the work of this global group administratively but we don’t tell them what to do.
Another thing that the PSF does is raise funds for the running, maintenance and care-taking of CPython and PyPI which is now supported by some of our infrastructure team’s time, plus two full-time security engineers, a PyPI support specialist and three CPython Developers in residence. More than half of our small staff of 13 is involved in either facilitating or doing this work.
The PSF is very glad for the existence of regional Python organizations like EuroPython Society, PAO, and the organizations that put on LATAM and PyCon Africa. We’re happy to help where we can while supporting each regional organization in dictating it’s own priorities, raising it’s own funding and choosing it’s own governance structure. Right now our conversations across different Python orgs is pretty casual, but maybe we could be more intentional in the future?
8 Likes
Cool idea! I would be quite interested to hear what PSF Staff think about the feasibility of such a split, and any opinions on whether it sounds worth pursuing (if feasible) from Steering Council members.
1 Like
I’d be interested to hear what problems this split would solve. How will the Python world be better if we do something like this? Most of the comments in this thread have sounded like, “we don’t need more from the PSF,” but maybe I’ve missed something.
10 Likes
To me it sounds like trying to apply software engineering principles to a management puzzle. I would be pretty surprised if there much to gain by splitting one nonprofit org into two smaller ones, especially given that they’ll probably have overlapping personnel. More administrative overhead, for some nebulous benefit of “focus”.
6 Likes
This would make sense, but perhaps not in the way you intended 
The PSF has two main roles (also see the PSF 1023 application form):
- Maintaining and protecting the IP rights in the CPython distribution and Python trademarks, so that it can create freely available CPython distributions and documentation.
- Running conferences (PyCon US) for the benefit of the Python community, but also as a source for generating profit which can then be disbursed to the community in form of grants
The second part is great when it works well, but given that PyCon US plays a major role in the PSF balance sheet, also a major risk, which could affect the first part. If the PSF were to go bankrupt, the IP in CPython and the Python trademarks would be lost.
A split into an organization which runs PyCon US and one which maintains the IP rights could help remove this risk, since the first part requires a lot less effort and financial investment, compared to the second part.
However, the split has other effects as well: Control over how PyCon US is run would be left to the organization B running PyCon US and the “IP rights PSF” organization A would likely not have much influence anymore. Even if B were to be set up as an org 100% owned by A, A would only have shareholder rights.
So it’s a path that would need careful thinking to pursue.
9 Likes
Just for a fuller picture, and because tbqh I’ll take any opening to share what all the PSF does, I would add to the roles the PSF plays nowadays[1], off the top of my head:
- Running PyPI, which includes 2 full-time roles - PyPI Support Engineer + PyPI Safety & Security Engineer
- CPython Developers-in-Residence program - 3 roles
- Advancing Python ecosystem security, esp. via the Security Developer in Residence + aforementioned PyPI Safety & Security Engineer
- Hosting Python infrastructure, e.g. Download Python | Python.org, docs.python.org, and as of very recently, pypistats.org–not to mention discuss.python.org!
- Fiscal sponsorship program for projects like Pallets, Jazzband, PyCascades, and PyLadies through which we provide admin support + it extends to them the benefit of our nonprofit status
- Various other community work, some of which is mainly run by PSF staff, some is mainly run by volunteers with light PSF support, and some are in between (e.g. awarding fellowships & other recognitions, education working group, DEI working group, community organizers resource hub, etc.[2])
- Communicating re all the above, which is always a larger share of the work than it would appear from the outside.
- I will also point out in a self-centered fashion that the sponsorship funding that allows us to carry out all this work doesn’t arrive on our books in a vacuum; it requires a staff person (viz. myself:)) to solicit and manage the funding and relationships. And worth noting a significant part of my role is working on ways to mitigate the risk of the reliance on PyCon US on our balance sheet you mentioned.
20 Likes
FWIW, I don’t think splitting the PSF would bring any benefits.
But maybe we should make sure is that folks within the PSF (and especially the grant WG) know that some activities – like funding US events – are (or should be) mirrored by other organizations in other countries/continents, and get funding that doesn’t show up on the PSF balance sheets.
That is: because EPS or Pyvec exists, Europe should look underfunded on PSF’s reports. (Unless the reporting changes to take that into account.)
On the other hand, if a region doesn’t have local organizations (yet), or getting regional sponsors is harder, then it should probably get more PSF money. (And also maybe support for founding an organization, but that doesn’t need to come from the PSF.)
3 Likes
Hi Loren, I think there was a misunderstanding. I was not trying to make it look like the PSF is only doing those two things.
I wanted to highlight the most precious asset the PSF owns (the IP rights) and the riskiest operation the PSF is running (PyCon US), discussing the idea to split the organization seen in that light. Reducing risks for loss of the IP would be a possible motivating factor, albeit one which would need careful planning.
Some additional background on the PSF (all this with an IIRC disclaimer):
The PSF was founded with the idea to have a vehicle to manage the IP rights in Python and the perspective of having a organization to help building and supporting the Python community around those (see the 1023 form I linked to).
The core devs at the time (in 2001) were made founding members of the PSF to give them an incentive to license their contributions to this new entity. Later on, the Python trademark was signed over to the PSF by CNRI.
One of the things we also had in mind, was to simplify the copyright situation around CPython by getting rid off the long license stack. Unfortunately, that never materialized for various reasons (one being that BeOpen no longer existed).
But this is getting off-topic, so I’ll stop there
9 Likes
Understood! It just seemed good to have some of the broader context in this thread for folks who don’t already have the info. And again, I’ll take the slimmest of openings to talk about the breadth of the PSF’s work, a professional hazard;)
It’s kinda neat to be able to read the partial history of Python & the PSF in the license stack…A nice accompaniment to the documentary, which I finally watched yesterday. And now I am getting off topic:)
5 Likes
As treasurer of BAPyA, the Bay Area Python Association, which supports SF Python, Pyninsula, BayPIGgies, PyBay and now Pyladies SF, we truly appreciate our partnership with the PSF.
What I feel would be helpful, is
- better membership infrastructure
- make becoming a new member easier
- make continued membership valued and respected
- better payment infrastructure for members
- lower the friction for members to become paid members
- provide the same customer experience that other non-profits provide to psf members (tax documentation, thank yous, user friendly gui’s and ability to showcase donations and membership on social media)
As a fiscal sponsoree, I would like to have better support in the form of more employees dedicated to the accounting for the fiscal sponsorees so we can provide financial reports to our members more proactively and more employees in the community support roles like Marie Nordin so we can pro-actively advertise and cross advertise on all the various different platforms. She is clearly a big step forward, but we definitely need more like Marie.
Look, it isn’t perfect, but we all know it is a labor of love. We love python, and we want to preserve the community which has supported us.
3 Likes
A side need that is coming up a lot this year and is specific to PyBay is that we are getting a lot of requests for Visa support documentation from overseas attendees, and we do not currently have the infrastructure to provide any such documentation. This is a shame because we do want international attendees and believe in the value of international exchange programs.
2 Likes
Thank you @polka fot sharing these. I agree with all your points, especially with the need to have a better infrastructure for the Financials aspect of the community, and also for processing sponsorships and budgeting for each of the PSF fiscal sponsoree. I’m in the organizing team of PyLadiesCon and also a local PyLadies chapter leader. I wish that there are more automated process, and better reporting mechanism so that we could share and be more transparent about our community financing. I have some ideas about what I’d like to see in terms of the infrastructure, we’ve started to just build something out for PyLadiesCon[1]. I’d be interested to hear whether PSF has any thoughts or plans yet for improving the financial infrastructure.
[1] I discussed about this project in a Djangonaut Space Session: https://youtu.be/btOZ8VhD40g?si=FAFFH-zEaQK_vEih
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
You mean excluding the multiple people who did respond?
Or are Czech, Germany and Japan not international in your view? Or is your definition of week not 7 days?
Also “local around the world” is not the same request as “non-American”.
Again, it’s genuinely impressive how easily you misread simple evidence and represent facts that just aren’t true.
6 Likes