5 ms·

Some thoughts on this from my perspective as a white, European, who was graciously invited to speak at DjangoCon Africa. I am not involved at all with the PSF,

Some thoughts on this from my perspective as a white, European, who was graciously invited to speak at DjangoCon Africa. I am not involved at all with the PSF, but my company has given the PSF money in the past. I think that I could sense the slight uncertainty about the conference, and the post above had made plain why. Considering what more could have been done if that uncertainty was resolved more quickly, the PSF’s procrastination (which is a generous interpretation, a less generous interpretation could be “tactical stonewalling”) is very disappointing. I generally supports PSF initiatives, I hope they will answer publicly and if necessary make commitments to improve their communications and processes. The PSF need to recognise the pent-up demand for support and financial aid outside of the Anglosphere. With good leadership they could make a huge contribution. I appreciate the difficult situation that the organisers are now in: it takes courage to call out poor behaviour. This doesn’t diminish the organisers or the event in any way: it was a huge success from my perspective as an attendee. DjangoCon Africa was the most invigorating conference experience I have had in years.

jzb 3y ago
What strikes me most about this is that, apparently by the timeline described in the open letter, the conference organizers planned the event with the expectation they'd get funding and asked for the funding fewer than five months before the event. That seems like extremely poor planning from my perspective. Maybe that's normal for events given money by PSF, I dunno, but "we've already decided to do this so hurry up and say yes now or it's your fault" doesn't seem entirely reasonable to me. It is, unfortunately, something I've run into time and again, with community driven events.
- pradn 3y ago
  I don’t see why it would take more than one PSF board meeting to approve funding for an event. Even if the board had questions, the follow-up is supposed to happen quickly. Several months to approve $9000 is silly. That’s probably just the catering budget for a 3-day, 200-person conference in the Bay Area - let alone for a conference for all of Africa’s Python community.
  - jzb 3y ago
    The FAQ[1] asks for 6 weeks before an event, so I suppose that's fair. That still seems like poor planning, though -- clearly the event was planned the the presumption that the funding would be approved. What would this open letter have looked like if the ask had been turned down altogether? IMO the order of operations should be 1) ask for funding, 2) plan the event, not the other way around. [1] https://www.python.org/psf/grants/faq/ https://www.python.org/psf/grants/faq/
    - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
      Poor planning to ask for money 6 months in advance? How is that poor planning?
      - bombcar 3y ago
        You ask for money far in advance so you can get a no with a reasonable timeframe to switch to something else. Yes is easy, what's you're no plan?
        kakwa_ 3y ago
        Or you simply are extremely cautious not knowing how bureaucratic and slow the PSF is or is not.
        ExoticPearTree 3y ago
        6 months is way in advance. PSF policy is to ask 4-6 weeks before the event (Timeframe: We require that applications be submitted 6 weeks before the event/project start date - this gives us enough time to thoroughly review, ask questions, and have enough time to send you the funds.), so 6 months is more than enough time. And we're missing the issue: the organizers were asking for $9k, which by all means should have been an easy yes/no. If they would have asked for 100k, maybe, but $9k is chump change.
        jzb 3y ago
- sampo 3y ago
  > asked for the funding fewer than five months before the event The Python Software Foundation says that they need less than 6 weeks for processing grant applications: https://www.python.org/psf/grants/ https://www.python.org/psf/grants/
  - jzb 3y ago
    Yeah, just dug that up myself. I still feel that you ask for funding and then plan the event, if the funding is crucial, but clearly the PSF set an expectation that it didn't live up to. Note the same FAQ, though, says this: "There is no set maximum, but grants are awarded with consideration for the annual PSF grant budget and that events/sprints will be virtual...with that in mind are willing to consider up to $2,500 per request for larger virtual events." My guess is that this FAQ needs an update now that the PSF is once again willing to fund in-person events.
    - ealexhudson 3y ago
      It's a bit chicken and egg though: I would expect that a grant would be much more likely to be granted for an event that had a decent amount of groundwork already done? For new events especially, you'd want to see some commitment.
      - jzb 3y ago
        I'd want to see a plan, for sure. I would, in the place of the PSF folks, not want to be handed a "this is already in motion, and we are depending on funding so you better say yes."
        remram 3y ago
        This doesn't appear to be the case, and they had a plan if the PSF had said no. The problem is that they didn't say anything, which in turn meant they couldn't finalize the program or answer to their own requests for travel expense (either way).
        deleted 3y ago
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  I'm missing something: you're saying 5 months in not enough time for a bunch of people to meet up and say "yeah, we're giving money for this event" or "no, we're not interested" ? It should be a week or two to decide, not months.
mkoubaa 3y ago
I'm very disappointed in the PSF leadership. Their organization has a clear mission, and it's leaders need to be held accountable. Folks leading institutions ought to understand that they are placed there as stewards, not as an opportunity to exercise leverage in other areas, regardless of their good intention. People who donate to PSF do not want to be an instrument for another cause, they could just as well donate to that cause.

jzb 3y ago

What strikes me most about this is that, apparently by the timeline described in the open letter, the conference organizers planned the event with the expectation they'd get funding and asked for the funding fewer than five months before the event. That seems like extremely poor planning from my perspective. Maybe that's normal for events given money by PSF, I dunno, but "we've already decided to do this so hurry up and say yes now or it's your fault" doesn't seem entirely reasonable to me. It is, unfortunately, something I've run into time and again, with community driven events.

pradn 3y ago
I don’t see why it would take more than one PSF board meeting to approve funding for an event. Even if the board had questions, the follow-up is supposed to happen quickly. Several months to approve $9000 is silly. That’s probably just the catering budget for a 3-day, 200-person conference in the Bay Area - let alone for a conference for all of Africa’s Python community.
- jzb 3y ago
  The FAQ[1] asks for 6 weeks before an event, so I suppose that's fair. That still seems like poor planning, though -- clearly the event was planned the the presumption that the funding would be approved. What would this open letter have looked like if the ask had been turned down altogether? IMO the order of operations should be 1) ask for funding, 2) plan the event, not the other way around. [1] https://www.python.org/psf/grants/faq/ https://www.python.org/psf/grants/faq/
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    Poor planning to ask for money 6 months in advance? How is that poor planning?
    - bombcar 3y ago
      You ask for money far in advance so you can get a no with a reasonable timeframe to switch to something else. Yes is easy, what's you're no plan?
      - kakwa_ 3y ago
        Or you simply are extremely cautious not knowing how bureaucratic and slow the PSF is or is not.
      - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
        6 months is way in advance. PSF policy is to ask 4-6 weeks before the event (Timeframe: We require that applications be submitted 6 weeks before the event/project start date - this gives us enough time to thoroughly review, ask questions, and have enough time to send you the funds.), so 6 months is more than enough time. And we're missing the issue: the organizers were asking for $9k, which by all means should have been an easy yes/no. If they would have asked for 100k, maybe, but $9k is chump change.
        jzb 3y ago
sampo 3y ago
> asked for the funding fewer than five months before the event The Python Software Foundation says that they need less than 6 weeks for processing grant applications: https://www.python.org/psf/grants/ https://www.python.org/psf/grants/
- jzb 3y ago
  Yeah, just dug that up myself. I still feel that you ask for funding and then plan the event, if the funding is crucial, but clearly the PSF set an expectation that it didn't live up to. Note the same FAQ, though, says this: "There is no set maximum, but grants are awarded with consideration for the annual PSF grant budget and that events/sprints will be virtual...with that in mind are willing to consider up to $2,500 per request for larger virtual events." My guess is that this FAQ needs an update now that the PSF is once again willing to fund in-person events.
  - ealexhudson 3y ago
    It's a bit chicken and egg though: I would expect that a grant would be much more likely to be granted for an event that had a decent amount of groundwork already done? For new events especially, you'd want to see some commitment.
    - jzb 3y ago
      I'd want to see a plan, for sure. I would, in the place of the PSF folks, not want to be handed a "this is already in motion, and we are depending on funding so you better say yes."
      - remram 3y ago
        This doesn't appear to be the case, and they had a plan if the PSF had said no. The problem is that they didn't say anything, which in turn meant they couldn't finalize the program or answer to their own requests for travel expense (either way).
      - deleted 3y ago
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
I'm missing something: you're saying 5 months in not enough time for a bunch of people to meet up and say "yeah, we're giving money for this event" or "no, we're not interested" ? It should be a week or two to decide, not months.

mkoubaa 3y ago

I'm very disappointed in the PSF leadership. Their organization has a clear mission, and it's leaders need to be held accountable. Folks leading institutions ought to understand that they are placed there as stewards, not as an opportunity to exercise leverage in other areas, regardless of their good intention. People who donate to PSF do not want to be an instrument for another cause, they could just as well donate to that cause.