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

PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

pyfound.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 886 posts

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#111

Post by takluyver »

burnerRhodov2 wrote: post #74

So, all these clauses where changed back in Feb/ March. They definitely had to agree to the amendments on their grants, and they still had funding until October 1st. So, I feel like this is revisionist history because they would have been notified way before today to renew thier grant. So they signed the amendments and spent the money...

It's not a renewal, it's their first application for government funding, and they turned it down without accepting the terms. This is all quite clear in the blog post.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#112

Post by burnerRhodov2 »

its-summertime wrote: post #104
burnerRhodov2 wrote: post #74

So, all these clauses where changed back in Feb/ March. They definitely had to agree to the amendments on their grants, and they still had funding until October 1st. So, I feel like this is revisionist history because they would have been notified way before today to renew thier grant. So they signed the amendments and spent the money...

> In January 2025, the PSF submitted a proposal to the US government National Science Foundation under the Safety, Security, and Privacy of Open Source Ecosystems program to address structural vulnerabilities in Python and PyPI. > It was the PSF’s first time applying for government funding. It doesn't seem to be a renewal, and they seem to have applied before the clauses were added. - - - Additionally, on September 2…

thats not true....

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?indexName=awardfull&...

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#113

Post by politician »

fn-mote wrote: post #94
politician wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I read it as an agreement to an interpretation that doing those things would violate the law. The Executive branch can make any claim it wants, but the Judiciary branch has the authority to decide what a reviewable claim means.

The GP's point is that it puts recipients in the position of having to argue that something they agreed to is invalid. This presumably places a higher burden of proof on the company. In the absence of such a statement, the first claim would need to be "the DEI program your company runs is against federal law", which could then be tested in the courts.

> The GP's point is that it puts recipients in the position of having to argue that something they agreed to is invalid. This presumably places a higher burden of proof on the company.

Understood; while I disagree with the GP's point, I do appreciate your response.

I don't believe such example clauses raise the threshold for the defense against a claim given that there could be practically unlimited number of such examples. I don't believe that any such example so highlighted creates an effective higher priority than any other possible example under 14th amendment equal protection grounds.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#114

Post by its-summertime »

burnerRhodov2 wrote: post #112
its-summertime wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In January 2025, the PSF submitted a proposal to the US government National Science Foundation under the Safety, Security, and Privacy of Open Source Ecosystems program to address structural vulnerabilities in Python and PyPI. > It was the PSF’s first time applying for government funding. It doesn't seem to be a renewal, and they seem to have applied before the clauses were added. - - - Additionally, on September 2…

thats not true.... https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?indexName=awardfull&...

All of those are marked as "PURCHASE ORDER", I don't think the PSF applies for those. I don't think they are what one would consider funding

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#115

Post by anon84873628 »

1121redblackgo wrote: post #102
drstewart wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am going to going even further than you and suggest if you are an American do not support America First, that means you instead support America Last. If you believe that, you should think about what other countries and groups support those kinds of things, and what kind of company supporting terrorist groups puts you in. No, there isn't a legitimate reason not to want America First. Yes, it's important we call out…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Pretty sure it was an attempt at satire or reductio ad absurdem.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#116

Post by rectang »

mc32 wrote: post #21
bilekas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems very un-American. The government dictating how you run your business ? > “do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.” Is that even legal to add such an arbitrary and opinionated reason to a government grant? I applaud them for taking a stand, it…

I think people defend anti discrimination or are against it depending on how the anti discrimination policy discriminates discrimination. We always discriminate. We have to. But only some discrimination is allowed and some are not allowed. The difference is what kind of discrimination people feel is fair and unfair.

I agree that humans discriminate inherently, although I would argue that what differentiates us is whether we struggle against that impulse.

On some level, the idea that we all discriminate has the potential to help us move beyond the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy. (I prefer the formulation "we all discriminate" over the dubious alternative "we're all racist".) But I'm not sure it will ever achieve mass acceptance, because it activates the human impulse to self-justify.

I dream that one day someone will come up with version of this idea that is universally acceptable.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#117

Post by epistasis »

qcnguy wrote: post #95
aspir wrote: post #29

This isn't good for the PSF, but if these "poison pill" terms are a pattern that applies to all NSF and (presumably) other government research funding, the entire state of modern scientific research is at risk. Regardless of how you, as an individual, might feel about "DEI," imposing onerous political terms on scientific grants harms everyone in the long term.

[flagged]

> DEI is an immoral, hate based and anti-truth ideology.

This is called getting high on your own supply. It was never any of those things, but lies like the ones you are spreading were perpetuated to push back against the idea of equal fairness for all.

As proof that you are spreading further lies, one only has to look at the long string of court filings that shows that the administrations' policies fighting DEI are outright racism, words that are coming from conservative judges appointed long ago that operate based on truth rather than whatever misinformation cult has taken over so much of politics these days. Here's just one of many many many instances of blatant racism being perpetrated through Trump's politicization of science funding.

> ‘My duty is to call it out’: Judge accuses Trump administration of discrimination against minorities—The Reagan-appointed judge ordered the NIH to restore funds for research related to racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/16/judge-rebuke-trump-...

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#118

Post by ajross »

philipallstar wrote: post #76
dangus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I am going to add my own stronger language than yours: if you don’t feel positively about diversity, equity, and inclusion, then you are sending a message that you instead support homogeneity, inequity, and exclusion. This "if you're not for us you're against us" is a very broken way of thinking. It excludes the many, many more people just don't care about diversity and want the best people in a role regardless of…

> It excludes the many, many more people

Are these people actually attested? In my experience, virtually everyone I've ever seen make a strong argument against "DEI" ended up having some... unsavory attitudes more generally. Scratch hard in discussion or check post histories[1] and you end up at some variant of white nationalism or men's rights, almost every time.

Basically no one goes to bat for "wanting the best people in a role". People get political when they feel aggrieved. "DEI mania" is always a response to "I think this is going to hurt people like me".

[1] Edit: I did. And... well...

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#119

Post by pornel »

throwaway091025 wrote: post #48
MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read > support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers as a racist statement, you need to step back and re-evaluate things.

[flagged]

That would be true if the society was already perfectly fair and neutral (which some people believe).

However, there is racism and sexism in the world (it's systemic, in a sense it's not about one person not liking another personally, but biases propagated throughout the society). To counter that, you need to recognize it, and it will be necessary to treat some people differently.

For example, women may not feel safe being a small minority at a gathering full of men. If you do nothing, many potentially interested women will not show up. You could conclude that it's just the way things are and women are simply not interested enough in the topic, or you could acknowledge the gender-specific issue and do something about it. But this isn't a problem affecting everyone equally, so it would require treating women specially.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#120

Post by throw_a_grenade »

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #67
throwaway091025 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

People ARE treated differently based on race and gender. For example, women are severely underrepresented in the tech industry. You can either look into why that is and attempt to address underlying issues, or you can pretend people are sexist for doing something that doesn't directly benefit you.

The way how you respond and means of addressing the issue very much matters. It's possible to have equitable objectives, but using discriminatory means. For example, just declaring quota and filling to order will fulfill the objective, but will be very discriminatory in practice.
Post reply on HN