Since you only created your account to discuss in this topic, could you introduce yourself? Are you a PSF member? What is your interest in this topic?
7 Likes
Did it occur that I might have created this account precisely because I feared that any dissenting voice, even one that agrees on the principles of the statement that was made, might be met with indirect consequences (subtle shuns, the internet mob, and so on)? Jack is braver than I.
I do not feel comfortable sharing personal details, and I think it highly irrelevant too. Some of the discussion in this thread has only confirmed my fears. The tolerance for ideas that differ from one’s own does not seem that large. My interest in this topic should be clear: I do not believe that the PSF should make political statements. It will eventually divide this community, implicitly or explicitly—that much should be clear from the discussion already. There are plenty of other places where people can go if they want to be political.
2 Likes
To the contrary, I think putting your name behind your comments would make some of us, myself included, consider them more carefully. Trust does that.
I’d be surprised if there were any unpleasant consequences from what you’re saying. As you can see, you’re definitely not alone in your opinion, OP included.
Your choice, you seem to be very passionate about the topic.
3 Likes
I see you are grouping three of us together whose common thread is we don’t agree with you. That feels a lot like politics.
You are using emotional and inflammatory language. Again, feels like politics.
Looking up what “politics” actually means:
- the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area
- especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Was the PSF’s statement political? Some will say yes, some no; either way, I think it was needed and appropriate.
4 Likes
Would you have stayed or refrained from posting this if it were labeled as a statement by the PSF Board?
While you’re obviously allowed to stay anonymous and we all respect that decision, I agree with Łukasz that it does matter if you are a PSF member or not. Otherwise how does any of this affect you? This entire discussion is about whether members (dis)agree with a public statement the PSF made. If you’re not a PSF member then you were not represented by the statement.
I personally want to highlight what Hynek said: the PSF was very much in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. Some of us wanted the PSF to make a public statement while obviously others did not. People were bound to be disappointed one way or another.
I will say that I don’t view what’s going on as US-centric. Protests are being had here in Canada against systemic racism. There have been protests worldwide. While a US event may have been the catalyst, what’s going on now transcends US borders.
I will also say I don’t view what was said as political. Mirriam-Webster defines “politics” as being about government. Reading the statement by the PSF, there’s no mention of government, political rule, etc. And if you get down to like the fifth definition it becomes so vague you make it about any statement that applies to a group of people. I also don’t view racism as political; to me racism is just morally wrong.
The PSF’s statement is impassioned and it’s very topical, but I disagree it’s political.
But the PSF’s statement did not single out any country. To me this whole situation is about systemic racism and specifically racism against the Black community. That is a global issue and not limited to any single country.
A point I would like to make is the PSF’s mission includes having it “support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers.” To me that means coming out publicly against racism is within the PSF’s purview as racism does not promote diversity. Stating that the PSF supports the eradication of “racism, xenophobia, and all other forms of inequality” also falls within that mission to tell people that the PSF and the Python community welcome all people who holds these same ideals. Saying the PSF supports the Black community – which has members of the Python community within it – in striving for the end of racism meets this mission.
To me the PSF’s statement is one stating the organization is against racism. It made that statement now because it’s topical, but I don’t view it as some secret or new viewpoint. To me the statement isn’t political at all but amplifying a view the PSF already held based on its mission and actions. In other words I think the statement was a reasonable one to make and I’m glad it was made. For me the PSF and the Python community value diversity and inclusion greatly, and racism flies in the face of that. Making that more blatantly public when it was already a held belief by the PSF as stated in its mission and one I think the wider community also holds is entirely supported by me as a PSF fellow and former executive vice president.
27 Likes
Even hypothetically, that’s a fairly limited view of the PSF. I tend to view the PSF a bit more broadly than just as a group that only affects itself. The PSF holds intellectual rights, plays a large role in the direction of the language, conferences, grants, etc. It is also seen as a leader to the broader Python community, both intellectually and culturally. So what the PSF does is seen and often associated to the much broader Python community. Though technically not the PSF’s concern, its actions can have downstream impacts. To the extent that its actions might cause divisions which might impact developer culture, continued contributions, and so on, the actions of PSF seem quite relevant to members and non-members alike. That might be a minority view, but my assumption has been that the entire point of the PSF is so that we can impact more than just the members.
3 Likes
While I am saddened that long standing individuals in the community would choose to leave, I hope with time that they will reconsider their decision.
The PSF statement, based on my understanding, was made in support of the PSF’s global mission and advocacy for the mission. While it is within everyone’s right to disagree with the PSF mission, the organization’s mission has stood for many years.
As a non-profit, the PSF and its board can choose to advocate in support of its mission. BoardSource reference. The statement made did not make a political statement. Instead the statement was a humanitarian statement in support of the PSF’s mission.
22 Likes
ebp wrote:
"I will just mention that in many workplaces (aka professional
audiences), political discussion is often considered inappropriate."
This, a thousand times this.
I have been priviledged to work in workplaces with sufficient conformity
that we could talk politics with impunity. I’ve also worked at places
with a more diverse work-force where taking politics was considered
completely inappropriate behaviour.
3 Likes
I never said the PSF didn’t have outward influence. What I said was this thread was about whether PSF members were comfortable with the anti-racism statement that was released by the PSF. Those two things are not the same. Jack’s objection was a statement of this sort was made on his behalf indirectly by being a PSF member; it has nothing to do with potential impact on the Python community of stating publicly that the PSF views racism is bad.
2 Likes
It seemed the implication from both you and ambv was that unless I was a PSF member, the PSF statement couldn’t represent me:
I then stated why I disagreed, in principle, with what you said.
I am fully aware of Jack’s stated objection. In my mind, the entire reason for the conversation in the first place was never about racism per se. Rather, it regards the broader topic of whether the PSF should avoid making political statements (or if you prefer, whether it should comment on emotionally-charged contemporaneous issues that require political solutions).
The repeated claims from some that the statement was not political also seem like an odd denial. The entire thread reveals that the statement was received by many in the audience as a (socio)political statement. I happen to know many people who are okay with the idea of a more political PSF and they have no issue acknowledging that the statement was political.
1 Like
Correct … on behalf of the members of the PSF.
It is not a denial. It is a disagreement. I never said others didn’t think the statement was political. I said I didn’t think it was political.
I put in a lot of effort to mark my statements clearly as opinion, but the fact that you are not willing to do the same and are instead making statements that contort my words as if I am denying what others are saying here is disingenuous and unfair. I don’t know if you are doing it to distract from what I am saying or you are simply unaware of it. Regardless, I am choosing to no longer engage with you.
8 Likes
Well, I’m happy to admit that “denial” was a poor choice of words (it was meant in the sense of denying that it is was a political statement). It was not an attempt at contortion. Disagreement is more appropriate.
[Edit] For the record, I never claimed that you were denying that others believed the statement to be political. That’s a misreading of what I wrote. My point was to highlight (again) that since the statement was interpreted as political by many people, then the statement should be understood as political despite opinions (from you and others) that it was not—IOW intent etc isn’t the metric. Anyway, this is definitely splitting hairs with no added value.
My broader points about the expanded topic and audience remain the same. Cheers. [This entire side thread seems like a bit of a distraction anyway…]
I’ve been a PSF member since 2012, and I’m proud of how our organization has pivoted as it matures. Back when Python was an underdog, developing and promoting the language itself was the PSF’s main work. Now, I see a greater emphasis on diversity and inclusion in tech, and expanding CS education access to poor schools and poor countries. I’m happy with this shift in emphasis and I’d argue for going farther. It is natural and right for a community that formed for a specific purpose, once it has accomplished that purpose, to choose new goals.
Given the PSF’s stand for diversity in tech, and given the sudden intensity of focus on police violence against Black people in the United States, where the PSF is chartered and where many of us live, it’s entirely appropriate for the PSF to declare its support for Black Lives Matter. There is an opportunity now for all American organizations to speak out at once and shift public opinion and policy regarding police violence, I would be disappointed if we did not add our voice.
20 Likes
I think this and the rest of your post are a very nice summary that describes the situation for what it is. The shift in emphasis is a perfectly rational direction for PSF to go, if it decides to, and the point of this thread and subsequent discussions were to voice some objections to moving in that direction. Where we go from here will depend on how it is received. All signs seem to point to continuing in this direction, which again, is a perfectly valid choice. Not every one needs to agree, people can choose to stay involved or not, and the culture will develop as it does.
ebp, please stop posting or state your name and affiliation. You are half the posts but AFAIK are just a rando. I know the other people in this thread personally and have for years or decades. A short statement by someone I know is worth more to me than your dozens of posts.
8 Likes
Sorry, I don’t feel obligated to do that, so I’ll go ahead and stop posting under this name. It says quite a bit that we aren’t taking the points on their merits alone, and instead, are giving preference to networked connections. I try my best not to devalue posts by randos if they are making good faith attempts at discussion, which I have been. In general, I do feel like that has happened here as well, but you are now the third person to suggest that “outside” opinions are either not relevant and/or less valued. If I were not already familiar with the PSF, I could see how unwelcoming that could be to newcomers. I do understand that knowing the poster can help, but asking me to stop posting unless I identify is quite ridiculous. Thank you for speaking out.
4 Likes
I am not comparing your words against other words in this thread de novo. Before this thread existed I have read hundreds of emails by the other posters (hundreds each!). I have lots of context on their opinions. I take my mother’s opinion more seriously than random women at the grocery store.
4 Likes
Jack,
Thank you for all that you have done for Python and its community over many years. While I find the statement to be advocacy for the PSF mission and humanity, I respect that you may see it differently. While I am no longer on the PSF board, I think your comments raise an important point about future PSF statements.
In the spirit of “explicit is better than implicit”, I think that the PSF Board could clarify for the PSF membership, if not already published on the python website, what a non-profit may do within advocacy for the mission and what goes beyond that into a political statement or endorsement.
Warmly,
Carol
14 Likes
I am a PSF Supporting Member since registering at PyCon 2019.
I give my time and money to the PSF voluntarily, just like every other PSF member. I do this because, even if I may not agree 100% with every single action or resolution or statement etc. the Foundation makes, I trust that at the end of the day the PSF champions their stated goals of inclusion and diversity. The implementation details of those goals are the exact reason why we have things like Steering Council elections and round-table discussions.
The choice to stay neutral or silent or uninvolved about a given issue is itself a privilege for the person making that choice. Countless social media posts have shown how plenty of people are willing to bike-shed and nitpick the semantics of the statement, but the claim holds true regardless. And like it or not, only a select subset of people even get that kind of choice in the first place.
For whatever my singular opinion is worth, I would encourage the detractors in this thread to ask themselves why they feel so strongly the need to metaphorically take a stand with the PSF. I would argue that your underlying beliefs or reasons for criticism in fact have nothing to do with the PSF at all. This PSF issue is merely an outlet for whatever biases (unconscious or not) that already existed.
My final thought is: if after all this discussion you feel so deeply that what the PSF has done or said is still so unconscionable, then I would encourage you run for a PSF board position and enact the changes that you wish to fight so hard for. Otherwise, there isn’t any point in staying a PSF member.
Thank you specifically to the non-American PSF members who support the Black Lives Matter movement, and who also support the ideas of inclusion and diversity in these especially difficult times.
13 Likes