34
The PSF has withdrawn a $1.5 million proposal to US government grant program (pyfound.blogspot.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/python@programming.dev
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/56411678

https://fosstodon.org/users/ThePSF/statuses/115446659188615376

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 10 months ago* (12 children)

PSF is exactly the kinda organization the current administration explicitly does not want funded.

Thank the PSF self-righteous priestly leadership for outing themselves. This year's competition for Darwin award is gonna be fierce.

For my opinion to change:

  • remove the PSF code of conduct

  • remove politics from PSF. No political stances

  • replace the current leadership with folks who are not priests, so this crap doesn't keep repeating

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Being open, inclusive and non-bigoted is the non-political stance.

    This administration has repeatedly been shown to be vindictive and the mallot shaped claw back clause will likely be used to hurt anyone foolish enough to accept it in order to coerce whatever is politically favorable to the admin at that time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    Just hold the funds for two years. Clause expires.

    If the claw back occurs during the two year interm, nothing lost.

    So the claw back clause is not a show stopper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (9 children)

    Why take funds from a litigious source knowing full well they will attempt to embroil you in legal action for your intended standard operation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (8 children)

    The point about avoiding legal action is a risk that has to be weighed against the reward. And if you wrote the article, carefully quantifying the risks and associated costs. Would be a much higher degree of difficulty to argue against. Also would leave the impression that you'd make a great Project Manager.

    However that is just not PSF argument nor position.

    The PR articles make exactly two points:

    1. PSF leadership supports DEI
    2. the claw back risk is scary

    Have already addressed both issues the PSF has with moving forward and accepting funding.

    PSF can drop their DEI religious tenant, which is not virtuous, or continue to not be funded.

    Eventually the emperor has no clothes, would become obvious to all, that the current PSF leadership stance causes unfortunate and completely avoidable consequences.

    There is another unstated risk, explained best by Donald Rumsfield, the unknown unknowns. The west is at war with Russia. During wartime, govts can do unspeakable things. By being funded by govt, that squarely puts team PSF within the Wests or NATOs good graces. PSF is betting the eye of Sauron never comes their way. So accepting funding can be a positive risk with an associated absolutely huge opportunity reward. Not just the $1.5M, but US govt tends to throw money at problems especially during wartime. If US govt sees Python as a strategic resource, we might look back at that small $1.5M with nostalgia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

    The problem anti inclusion is at odds with the west as well.

    There is almost no benefit to siding with the minority political opinion and the definitional exclusion of the rest of the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

    The affects of anti-white discrimination policies (DEI) is alienation of white people. Luckily most white people are too dumb to properly respond until they are not. White people may march towards tribalism matching the rest of the world. Expect many subgroups to close themselves off.

    What you should do if you are white:

    • if possible, move to a state|country that is not actively discriminating against you or taxing you into extinction. Seek a clan that wants you as a member and aligns with your goals.

    • do not publish. Which also takes out the job loss threat of AI

    • do the absolute minimum to support the fiat printer masters

    • study from the failures of political movements and activists. There are no sides. The lessons are universal.

    • participate and teach others to participate in the parallel economy

    • do not offer help to those who love their fiat money printer masters

    Sit back and enjoy the show. All this tech is not written and maintained by retarts. Taking white people out of the equation, the tech maintenance collapse comes sooner.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Calling the python orgs DEI "anti-white" or related to anything else you mentioned honestly seems delusional. As in if you are experiencing real issues in your life I worry that this fantastical thinking maybe hindering your ability to address the real causes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    This is my stance. You are welcome to argue points, but gaslighting is not an argument. And only white people are gaslighted for tribalism, but its ok for everyone else to use identity politics in favor of their tribe.

    If there are other real causes then list them. By presenting an actual argument i might be in danger of learning something.

    You are showing a pattern of using psyche, especially reframing with gamed terminology (anti-inclusion), which then i counter by using the opposite terminology (anti-white). We could play this game from now 'til the end of eternity. This psyche back and forth however is not presenting an actual argument.

    And in case you lack situational/contextual awareness, we are in a programming forum. Not being able to string together a coherent or convincing argument will make world+dog wonder whether you are lost.

    Expect more from my peers. Stop toying with me and win the argument already. The barrier is not high.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Part of my choice of words is because you are describing issues I've seen no concrete evidence of. Especially with the PSF, who DEI actions are things like travel grants for the conferences, encourages local chapters, and having a code of conduct.

    None of those are anti-white or anything to do with taxes or monetary policy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    Thank you Thank you Thank you for listing the PSF activities that the PSF feels might violate current administrations executive order (EO) concerning DEI.

    Can completely rule out these as non-issues:

    • travel grants for the conferences
    • encourages local chapters (THIS IS NOT DEI)

    None of these PSF activities run afoul of the EO.

    Would like to add this as also a non-issue:

    • the two year claw back period (just hold the funds for two years)

    As long as the PSF doesn't go out of their way to ensure the code of conduct (1) or their operations or at conferences (2) are explicitly geared towards promoting DEI policies.

    PSF is concerned, correct me if i'm mistaken, so this most likely is the source of their concerns. Increasingly seems like self-inflicted tempest in a tea cup or purposefully shooting themselves in the foot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Those are DEI policies. Those are the types of inivitives this administration have vindictively gone after. The same admin has repeatedly gone above and beyond to legal agreements on orgizations not showing public compliance (and even for orgs that have but were politically convient to attack anyways). Its not worth the risk to stand in front of that gun, even if the first chamber is an empty threat like you propose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    We don't need to agree these are DEI policies. This is a risk vs reward issue. So comes down to the simple question of, where does PSF derive it's funding.

    If PSF feels it's funding is sufficient, then it's safer to not take the funding. Pursuing the funding in the first place therefore must have been a easily foreseeable mistake.

    The West however is in a hyper-inflationary or at least inflationary situation. So PSF traditional base will face financial pressure.

    May have the luxury now to turn down the funding, but sit back and buckle in as the US and EU moves the dial way up to, hold my beer. During that period, securing funding may become super difficult.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent