Bravo

Posted Oct 27, 2025 18:39 UTC (Mon) by jhe (subscriber, #164815)
In reply to: Bravo by dskoll
Parent article: Python Software Foundation withdraws security-related grant proposal

I dislike that you threw the "completely unrelated political agenda" stone when none of the things that the NSF now prohibits are related to language programming. Why would the PSF have a conflicting mission in the first places?

to post comments

Bravo

Posted Oct 27, 2025 19:02 UTC (Mon) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

> Why would the PSF have a conflicting mission in the first places?

It doesn't, but that does not mean that the PSF can be unconcerned about the possibility that some of its efforts unrelated to the grant may be arbitrarily determined to cross some unwritten "no DEI" rule. A small organization cannot take the risk that funds already spent are clawed back.

Meanwhile, we are keeping a close eye on comments on this item. This is not aimed at "jhe" in particular, but all of the commenters. Please pay close attention to the guidelines in the comment editor before posting.

thanks,

jake

Bravo

Posted Oct 27, 2025 19:32 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (1 responses)

Here's the thing: An organization like the PSF might have bylaws or policies that are not directly related to language programming. The NSF should not be considering those things when it decides whether or not to fund an organization, just so long as those bylaws or policies don't actually break the law.

Letting a funding agency dictate unrelated aspects of how an organization is run, especially with the threat of having funding clawed back if the agency decides it doesn't like how the organization ended up being run, is much too high a risk. It's a poison pill.

Bravo

Posted Oct 27, 2025 20:09 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> NSF should not be considering those things when it decides whether or not to fund an organization, just so long as those bylaws or policies don't actually break the law.

Quite a few organizations only officially instituted DEI (and many other "unrelated to the mission") policies because they were effectively required to do in order to receive governmental funding (including tax relief). Those were either a direct requirement of the laws that created said funding, or court decisions that produced binding case law (usually stemming from the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment)

It is not an exaggeration to say that this government represents a complete reversal of literally decades of carefully constructed and *heavily* adjudicated policies. It remains to be seen what the courts will ultimately do, but I am saddened to see so many of my rural neighbors cheering the abrupt end of so many programs that their livelihood (and often, entire way of life) is utterly dependent upon.

Strings aren't always bad

Posted Oct 27, 2025 21:51 UTC (Mon) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071) [Link] (1 responses)

> I dislike that you threw the "completely unrelated political agenda" stone when none of the things that the NSF now prohibits are related to language programming.

Grants are routinely tied to requirements and objectives that are seemingly unrelated to the task the grant seeks to further. Often those seemingly side-requirements are a significant motivator for the grantor - the grant is there to encourage an organisation in a direction it might not otherwise go.

For example, grants may have terms that prohibit an organisation from working with nations and other organisations the grantor deems to be criminal, hostile or embargoed.

I don't think such terms are inherently bad, and they can IMO even be very positive. Though I happen to strongly disagree with the attitudes and beliefs this particular set of grant strings seeks to promote, and am relieved the PSF rejected the proposal.

Strings aren't always bad

Posted Oct 28, 2025 21:23 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

A big complaint here is that the terms PSF is objecting to were added after they submitted their proposal. They spent a lot of time and effort applying for the grant, only to discover it now had terms they found so objectionable that they decided to give up the grant rather than accept them. I could understand objecting to the bait and switch even if I supported the rules they were trying to enforce.