Just to clarify: the NSF grant was refused because it required the PSF to abandon all DEI efforts, not just that the grant itself couldn't be used for DEI. Accepting the NSF grant would have required the PSF to forgo one of its core principles. It was the right decision, not bad management.
Believe it or not, not all researched information is accurate. And even when it is accurate it isn't always interpreted correctly. It is not sufficient to simply research something.
One must also discuss it. That allows revealing what one thinks they know, to help realize what they don't through coordination with others.
That is what discussion is for. If he already had a perfect picture, what would the point of talking about it be? There isn't one.
I mean there were conversations in closed rooms nobody outside of the room knows about. What we know publicly is they refused the funding because it required them to drop DEI activities, which not only would have solved their funding issues but was the morally correct thing to do. The PSF should be focused on improving Python, it shouldn't be a political organization.
I don't agree that it was a "bad management decision". The Trump administration has demonstrated that it will play dirty with grants if they perceive that the receiving organization is not towing their political line as closely as they want.
Not only will they not grant future funds, but they have shown that they will not pay out previously agreed monies, and will even try (with government layers) to pull back funds from groups they have decided "do not align with the governments interests", for however they define that at that moment. There are a long list of court findings that these have been arbitrary and capricious, but every one of those findings (wins) cost the grant receivers a lot of money in court and later fees.
So any money taken from them is incurring a risk. You can disagree with the Python Foundation's calculus on this (saying it was not that large a risk), but please don't pretend that it was not an actual risk.
If you think the Trump administration wouldn't make up "DEI efforts" and then sue them for much more than $1.5m to exert pressure in other areas then I have a bridge to sell you.
Just to clarify: the NSF grant was refused because it required the PSF to abandon all DEI efforts, not just that the grant itself couldn't be used for DEI. Accepting the NSF grant would have required the PSF to forgo one of its core principles. It was the right decision, not bad management.
[flagged]
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Perhaps you should do some research before judging the decision making of the PSF.
He did some research. Now he is validating it.
Believe it or not, not all researched information is accurate. And even when it is accurate it isn't always interpreted correctly. It is not sufficient to simply research something.
One must also discuss it. That allows revealing what one thinks they know, to help realize what they don't through coordination with others.
That is what discussion is for. If he already had a perfect picture, what would the point of talking about it be? There isn't one.
rare constructive comment!
Right? "I find these matters are often more complex than I can understand from a headline but this feels like..."
Drive-by insinuation rather than argumentation.
I mean there were conversations in closed rooms nobody outside of the room knows about. What we know publicly is they refused the funding because it required them to drop DEI activities, which not only would have solved their funding issues but was the morally correct thing to do. The PSF should be focused on improving Python, it shouldn't be a political organization.
4 replies →
I don't agree that it was a "bad management decision". The Trump administration has demonstrated that it will play dirty with grants if they perceive that the receiving organization is not towing their political line as closely as they want.
Not only will they not grant future funds, but they have shown that they will not pay out previously agreed monies, and will even try (with government layers) to pull back funds from groups they have decided "do not align with the governments interests", for however they define that at that moment. There are a long list of court findings that these have been arbitrary and capricious, but every one of those findings (wins) cost the grant receivers a lot of money in court and later fees.
So any money taken from them is incurring a risk. You can disagree with the Python Foundation's calculus on this (saying it was not that large a risk), but please don't pretend that it was not an actual risk.
> I believe a condition of the money was it couldn't be used for DEI
This is a morally depraved condition, kudos on them for turning it down
If you think the Trump administration wouldn't make up "DEI efforts" and then sue them for much more than $1.5m to exert pressure in other areas then I have a bridge to sell you.