PSF probably would've been OK....

Posted Oct 28, 2025 12:04 UTC (Tue) by fest3er (guest, #60379)
Parent article: Python Software Foundation withdraws security-related grant proposal

In the withdrawal proposal, PSF stated, «These terms included affirming the statement that we “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.”» Note the last phrase, «in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws» which is missing from the original article.

I think PSF would have been perfectly fine if they (1) sought the best design and implementation contributions they could get without regard to [race], creed, color, gender, age, national/geographic origin, or other category, and (2) did not use the grant money to free up unrestricted funds to use to fund programs that would exclude or include contributors (a) based on any categories that may apply to them, and/or (b) in order to more closely match local, regional, continental or global distributions of said categories.

If PSF executed a de jure or de facto policy that actively worked toward assembling contributors such that their global origins, ages, and genders are:

12.5% European
5.5% from Western Offshoots (US and others)
8.8% Latin American
2.1% Japanese
57.4% Asian
12.9% African,
1.2 males to .98 females in each category, and
26% are under 16 years of age, 9% are over 64 years of age, and the balance comes from other ages in between

PSF would almost certainly be in violation of the terms and conditions of federal regulations and, thus, the grant.

But this is just my opinion which doesn't count for much anyway.

to post comments

PSF probably would've been OK....

Posted Oct 28, 2025 14:12 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (1 responses)

The current US administration has asserted that DEI programs are in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws, but that's false. While recent rulings such as the Ames case have narrowly chipped away at DEI programs, DEI remains legal in the United States.

PSF probably would've been OK....

Posted Oct 28, 2025 19:31 UTC (Tue) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]

Does their legality imply that the clawback clause is unenforceable? And even if so, who would foot the legal bill?

While I applaud the PSF for choosing not to renege their ideals, they're also clear that refusing the grant was the only practical choice they had.

Operator precedence?

Posted Oct 28, 2025 16:13 UTC (Tue) by nickodell (subscriber, #125165) [Link]

In the withdrawal proposal, PSF stated, «These terms included affirming the statement that we “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.”» Note the last phrase, «in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws» which is missing from the original article.

I think the operator precedence of the section you're quoting is ambiguous.

Is it ((diversity_equity_inclusion or discriminatory_equity_ideology) and violation_of_law)?

Or is it (diversity_equity_inclusion or (discriminatory_equity_ideology and violation_of_law))?

It sounds like you're interpreting it as the first interpretation, but the second seems equally plausible. If a court interpreted it as the second reading, then any DEI policy would be against the terms of the grant.