Thank you Thank you Thank you for listing the PSF activities that the PSF feels might violate current administrations executive order (EO) concerning DEI.

Can completely rule out these as non-issues:

travel grants for the conferences
encourages local chapters (THIS IS NOT DEI)

None of these PSF activities run afoul of the EO.

Would like to add this as also a non-issue:

the two year claw back period (just hold the funds for two years)

As long as the PSF doesn't go out of their way to ensure the code of conduct (1) or their operations or at conferences (2) are explicitly geared towards promoting DEI policies.

PSF is concerned, correct me if i'm mistaken, so this most likely is the source of their concerns. Increasingly seems like self-inflicted tempest in a tea cup or purposefully shooting themselves in the foot.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Those are DEI policies. Those are the types of inivitives this administration have vindictively gone after. The same admin has repeatedly gone above and beyond to legal agreements on orgizations not showing public compliance (and even for orgs that have but were politically convient to attack anyways). Its not worth the risk to stand in front of that gun, even if the first chamber is an empty threat like you propose.

[–] logging_strict@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

We don't need to agree these are DEI policies. This is a risk vs reward issue. So comes down to the simple question of, where does PSF derive it's funding.

If PSF feels it's funding is sufficient, then it's safer to not take the funding. Pursuing the funding in the first place therefore must have been a easily foreseeable mistake.

The West however is in a hyper-inflationary or at least inflationary situation. So PSF traditional base will face financial pressure.

May have the luxury now to turn down the funding, but sit back and buckle in as the US and EU moves the dial way up to, hold my beer. During that period, securing funding may become super difficult.