Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

pythonafrica.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 423 posts

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#61

Post by ttyprintk »

gpderetta wrote: post #39
DeathArrow wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, software should not be tied to politics. People should be able to hold different political views while taking part in software conferences.

On the other hand, people should be able to go to conferences without risking life imprisonment. Politics should not overshadow the technical aim, but when you have three or more people, politics are inevitable.

Agreed. The organizers of this conference have the responsibility to describe, out loud, what their laws prescribe for which actions tolerated in the West. The organizers themselves are taking a political risk doing that.

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#62

Post by mdew »

anewhnaccount2 wrote: post #13
dilawar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but I'd have appreciated if they said no to the grant earlier. I hope Python Africa has learnt it lesson and will find ways to manage resources locally. That the only way to succeed in long run.

So PSF is not a global organisation. Africa need not apply is a pretty bad look.

Then when you tell Westerners that Africans are trying to "develop their continent" themselves, but they face various kinds of hurdles towards this objective, they will only dismiss it and say it's just that they are incapable of developing anything...

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#63

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

DeathArrow wrote: post #48

Well, why can't the local developers organize a conference without Python Software Foundation blessing?

They could. Or they could just not organize a conference at all:

>More than one of us confided in another that we wished we had never started the project.

One way to think about this situation is that the PSF exists to promote Python. If their slow grantmaking process is giving organizers such a headache that they wish they just didn't organize Python events, the PSF is failing at its mission.

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#64

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

latexr wrote: post #49
andrewstuart wrote: post #6

Why do “open letters” get so much more respect and attention than an ordinary whining email? The headline “A whining email to ” would be ignored. Change it to “open letter” and it’s instant gravitas. Seems to be the same sort of magic words as ”considered harmful”……. instantly credible and worthy of consideration. I really should frame all of my grumbles about the state of the world as “open letters” so people pay at…

That is confirmation bias. You only know of the successful open letters and are ignoring all the ones which were not. Search this very website for the term and sort by popularity, then start from the last page. See how many you ever even knew existed. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&prefix=false&query=ope...

Yep, I can call a press conference tomorrow and the attendance will be binary.

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#65

Post by lynx23 »

Xeamek wrote: post #35
DeathArrow wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, software should not be tied to politics. People should be able to hold different political views while taking part in software conferences.

>software should not be tied to politics. Why not? I mean, software is a product like any other. I for example wouldn't like if a group like ISIS was using my software, especially if they were using it to actively help them in commiting their crimes. If I could prevent that from happening, why shouldn't I?

The DSFG is a nice counter-example to your claim. Either something is unconditionally free, or it simply isn't.

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#66

Post by Xeamek »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #50
godzillabrennus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a naive statement. People die in large numbers because of horrible governments. Software conferences should be restricted because of politics.

Political pluralism should be the default. When an "us vs them" mentality is embedded in every aspect of society, those are the conditions that lead to horrible governments arising. It becomes more about protecting/promoting the "us" and screwing over the "them" than running a functional fair government.

>Political pluralism should be the default. Agreed.

But that doesn't mean that EVERY and ALL political view should be respected. You can have political pluralism in some restricted spectrum, but not accept things that are too extreeme. Not tolerating human rights abuse doesn't automatically lead to every aspect of life being overtaken by "us vs them" mentality. Claiming that it does is nothing more then a slippery slope fallacy

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#67

Post by layer8 »

bruce343434 wrote: post #32
gwd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then say "no" quickly so that they can look for other funding. [EDIT] And be honest about the fact that Africans (or more charitably, countries that have particular laws or a particular pattern of enforcement) Need Not Apply.

>And be honest about the fact that Africans Need Not Apply I have the hunch that that is what it came down to, a matter of public perception. Shunt africa, or shunt lgbt? Both "important minority identities" in the current zeitgeist of the western world. Probably no one wanted to touch that decision with a 10 ft pole.

How many LGBT Python developers would actually feel shunted by the PSF sponsoring a conference in Zanzibar?

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#68

Post by pydry »

DeathArrow wrote: post #30
ayhanfuat wrote: post #5

> What counts as “safety”? Which places in the world are truly safe for LGBTQIA+ community? How much of a city, or state, or country needs to be LGBTQIA+ hostile for the whole of it to be declared unworthy of PSF support? What a cheap shot. You don't need a safetyometer or something to determine that a country where same sex relationship is punishable by life imprisonment is unsafe for homosexuals or bisexuals.

At the same time, software should not be tied to politics. People should be able to hold different political views while taking part in software conferences.

>At the same time, software should not be tied to politics.

This sounds like an apolitical position, but it is a highly political position.

Software is and always will be tied to politics whether we like it or not. It can't be insulated from it.

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#69

Post by Ralfp »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #50
godzillabrennus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a naive statement. People die in large numbers because of horrible governments. Software conferences should be restricted because of politics.

Political pluralism should be the default. When an "us vs them" mentality is embedded in every aspect of society, those are the conditions that lead to horrible governments arising. It becomes more about protecting/promoting the "us" and screwing over the "them" than running a functional fair government.

Political pluralism is nice when you are discussing things like tax levels or investment targets, but a lot of "us vs them" arises from discussions like "I just want to exist in the open without prosecution" vs "your very existence is a problem and needs to be prevented".

Re: An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

#70

Post by darkerside »

This is probably a silly question, but why did they plan the conference and set a date before they knew they had funding? Wouldn't it make more sense to confirm the grant first, and then start planning the event? The letter comes off as pretty entitled.

My guess is that while there may be some unconscious bias at play here, there is also probably groundwork that could have been better laid. Perhaps European organizers get a better response because they've been doing this for a while, know the PSF Board personally, and the event is a known quantity.

On the flip side, if you want to make change and not just virtue signal, it's always better to engage. Organize a call, express your concerns, hear the organizers out, and find appropriate action to take. Of course, this process might not run on a timeline that is convenient to the organizers.

Post reply on HN