An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

Post by ExoticPearTree » Wed, Dec 06, 2023, 3:41 PM UTC

jzb wrote: post #186

JonAtkinson wrote: post #80

Some thoughts on this from my perspective as a white, European, who was graciously invited to speak at DjangoCon Africa. I am not involved at all with the PSF, but my company has given the PSF money in the past. I think that I could sense the slight uncertainty about the conference, and the post above had made plain why. Considering what more could have been done if that uncertainty was resolved more quickly, the PSF…

What strikes me most about this is that, apparently by the timeline described in the open letter, the conference organizers planned the event with the expectation they'd get funding and asked for the funding fewer than five months before the event. That seems like extremely poor planning from my perspective. Maybe that's normal for events given money by PSF, I dunno, but "we've already decided to do this so hurry up…

Post by ExoticPearTree » Wed, Dec 06, 2023, 3:43 PM UTC

jzb wrote: post #233

pradn wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see why it would take more than one PSF board meeting to approve funding for an event. Even if the board had questions, the follow-up is supposed to happen quickly. Several months to approve $9000 is silly. That’s probably just the catering budget for a 3-day, 200-person conference in the Bay Area - let alone for a conference for all of Africa’s Python community.

The FAQ[1] asks for 6 weeks before an event, so I suppose that's fair. That still seems like poor planning, though -- clearly the event was planned the the presumption that the funding would be approved. What would this open letter have looked like if the ask had been turned down altogether? IMO the order of operations should be 1) ask for funding, 2) plan the event, not the other way around. [1] https://www.python.o…

Post by nomdep » Wed, Dec 06, 2023, 3:45 PM UTC

IAmLiterallyAB wrote: post #206

mrweasel wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the map of the "LGBT rights by country or territory"[0] it is also not clear to me where people would suggest that the conferences be held. Zanzibar seems like one of the few places that would work, along with Botswana, and a few others. Some of the other countries that might work have completely different safety issue, regardless of your sexual orientation. I think realistically, someone has the well mean…

Based on that map, South Africa would seem to be the best choice

Post by bee_rider » Wed, Dec 06, 2023, 3:48 PM UTC

_cenw wrote: post #182

ploum wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are perfectly right that asking people to not care about the laws of a country is problematic. For personal safety and also as a moral stand point. But that should not be a reason to not fund conferences in those countries, conferences which are a way to learn, to discover new things. What do you think about conferences organizers, of every country, having to put on their website a little explanation of the laws…

Every place is a tradeoff. The US can be inaccessible through sheer travel cost too. And it is absolutely true that it is a western double standard. Football tournaments in gulf states and all. I was more upset the top comment in this thread is "shitting on human rights is just a difference of opinion" apologetics.

Post by leadingthenet » Wed, Dec 06, 2023, 3:49 PM UTC

tuetuopay wrote: post #267

leadingthenet wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but conversely, the organisers shouldn't feel entitled to Western funding either, in that case.

Is the PSF western "by design" or "de facto", the latter being the foundation having "accidentally" only western people on board? In theory the PSF should be worldwide with people from everywhere. Otherwise we should call it "EU+US PSF". However the reality is, it is staffed by westerners and funded by western companies. So it's a de-facto western foundation.