An Open Letter to the Python Software Foundation

Polarization is not a constant across time/space: https://www.brown.edu/news/2020-01-21/polarization

>Organizations should absolutely have avoided funding events in the US while we had a Muslim ban.

But did they actually do so? If not, it seems a little suspicious that the standard may have changed now that the event is in Africa? Perhaps holding everyone to the same standards means staying consistent with the previous precedent, that a few unjust laws shouldn't cause you to abandon an entire country?

Whether or not software should be political is kind of beside the point. Even if we assume that software should be apolitical, there's still the issue that it is the Tanzanian government that is imposing political restrictions on participation. The entire debate here is about the fact that the government of Tanzania will not not allow a software conference to exist in Tanzania that is divorced from politics.

If you truly, really want to be apolitical, then it shouldn't matter whether an attendee is openly gay or not. If it's really separated from the politics, then gay or anti-gay, trans or anti-trans, they should at the very least be able to participate while feeling like they're physically safe. And if they're not safe, then it's not apolitical.

If someone feels unsafe participating because of their identity, that is a political conference, it is a conference where people are being excluded on account of someone else's political views.

The PSF is not asking for everyone in Tanzania to say that they're fine with LGBTQ rights. But regardless of someone's political views about LGBTQ rights, LGBTQ people should still be able to participate safely in the conference. We're not talking about whether people can take part in a software conference while holding anti-LGBTQ views. We're asking whether or not it's reasonable for the political environment to threaten LGBTQ people and through that threatening environment prevent them from participating.

An apolitical conference is one where it's safe to give a tech talk regardless of whether or not you're openly trans, because regardless of whether or not people are offended about your gender, ultimately the technical content of your talk is the part that matters. A political conference is one where in addition to the tech, you also have to think about how you look and what clues you're letting slip and whether or not you're doing a good enough job pretending that your partner isn't your partner and whether you're using the bathroom people expect -- all just so you can avoid legal consequences from the government.

> the foundation likely being an US nonprofit, so integrating foreigners in the board may be extremely difficult.

As far as I know, it's not a problem. At first glance, PSF board and officers bios appear fairly international currently.

A foreign controlled, foreign benefitting organization that sends nearly all contributions to foreign organizations might not be tax exempt in the US, but that doesn't sound like the PSF.

>Is it? Since when does anyone have a fundamental right to funding?

No one has a right to funding, just a right to fair consideration. This sort of "no one has a right to funding" rhetoric gives the PSF license to discriminate in whatever arbitrary manner they please. Suppose Tommy Tuberville turns down your funding request because he doesn't like that an organizer is LGBT, and "no one has a fundamental right to funding" -- do you support that?

>A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about that at all. If someone shows up in drag, the question is, "what technical topic are they going to discuss?" If you have a dress code in mind for a Python conference, I would suggest that is a political ask. Code does not care if someone is wearing drag, it will compile the same.

Suppose my girlfriend and I are into BDSM, and I'm planning to lead her around the conference naked on a leash. An organizer talks to me about this. I say: "A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about this. Your only question should be what technical topic I am going to discuss. Your suggested dress code is a political ask. Code doesn't care about our kinks."

Should we treat a kink differently just because it happens to be disproportionately common among the LGBT population? Keep your kinks at home at a professional conference.

>"The government shouldn't be able to throw me into prison" is not "all of the taking". Again, if we were talking about the presence of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or about people attending who were known to be anti-gay, maybe we'd have a conversation about give or take. But that is very much not what we are talking about.

Sorry this seems like a total non sequiter to me, you'll have to explain better. I don't see how it connects to the drag queen scenario. It seems like you're making a motte and bailey argument: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...

>And the scenario we are discussing is explicitly one in which one side has said, "you do not get to coexist and if you try to we will throw you in prison. Hide from us." That's not give and take.

Indeed, homophobic laws are bad.

I'm glad you also believe in give and take. Can you give a specific example of a "give" that the LGBT community should be willing to make? See my statement from earlier "Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving." I'm happy to be corrected!

>Give and take is "we don't like each other but we'll live together and do our best to make this work." In contrast, "stop existing" is the opposite of give and take, and "stop existing" is what the Tanzanian government is asking for.

>...

>If the risk of you letting slip that you're gay is a prison sentence, then that is not a reasonable ask, period.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I agree that the Tanzanian government are being jerks. My position is I don't think it's fair to take our frustration about that out on African people.

>What part of "you can be thrown in prison if you're outed as gay" do people not understand here? Do you think gay people in Africa like that situation?

Has there even been an anonymous complaint? Let someone make an anonymous complaint, a trusted community member can verify their identity, then maybe we can think about a venue change.

>And in any case, if you're throwing a worldwide conference and you want it to be pluralist, then it's not just your opinions that matter anymore, you have to be able to tolerate a global audience. Tanzania doesn't appear have the legal flexibility to do that.

I agree if the conference name was "DjangoCon Global" as opposed to "DjangoCon Africa", Tanzania would not be an appropriate location. As things are, I think it is reasonable to weigh the cost of a venue change, vs a few gay Africans having to briefly live under homophobic laws that they're most likely quite used to if they travel around Africa.

I think it is reasonable for "DjangoCon Africa" to target an African audience and make decisions around what works best for that audience. For example, if a venue change means that some LGBTs can now attend safely, but a much larger number of other conference attendees aren't able to reach the new location, then I think it is reasonable to stay in the original location, in order to maximize overall accessibility for attendees. Even if Tanzania is the wrong venue, I think that is a discussion for next year's conference -- this isn't a sufficient justification to cancel the conference altogether or deny it funding. That'd be like if a college defunded their intro to computer science class because not everyone got an A. It's a toxic need for equality. Again, it's not fair to take out frustration with Tanzania's laws out on the people of Africa.