4 ms·
Then say "no" quickly so that they can look for other funding. [EDIT] And be honest about the fact that Africans (or more charitably, countries that have partic
by gwd 3y ago
Then say "no" quickly so that they can look for other funding. [EDIT] And be honest about the fact that Africans (or more charitably, countries that have particular laws or a particular pattern of enforcement) Need Not Apply.
- bruce343434 3y ago>And be honest about the fact that Africans Need Not Apply I have the hunch that that is what it came down to, a matter of public perception. Shunt africa, or shunt lgbt? Both "important minority identities" in the current zeitgeist of the western world. Probably no one wanted to touch that decision with a 10 ft pole.
- jsmeaton 3y agoThe open letter states it was a single individual that was able to stonewall the process. It wasn’t about the PSF group as a whole that didn’t want to touch the decision. One person. I think the letter has a fairly good point that processes are broken if this is possible.
- ttyprintk 3y agoI have to guess that, based on the meeting minutes posted nearby, the one vote needed to reach 5/10 vote is what this is referring to. The minutes explain a high number of abstentions. The chair of the PSF board was one of the Zanzibar organizers, for example.
- cobertos 3y agoIt doesn't seem like it was so simple as the open letter puts it? From the boards blog post https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2023/10/september-october-board-votes.html https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2023/10/september-october-board... The first vote had 6 abstentions and 4 yes votes. The second vote had 10 yes votes and 1 abstention. It seemed there was enough outstanding information/questions for 6 total people to abstain, though perhaps 1 of those 6 was using it nefariously? Hard to say
- layer8 3y agoHow many LGBT Python developers would actually feel shunted by the PSF sponsoring a conference in Zanzibar?