The Python Software Foundation, earlier this year, successfully obtained a $1.5 million grant from the US National Science Foundation "to address structural vulnerabilities in Python and PyPI". The actual grant came with some strings attached though, in the form of a requirement not to pursue diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. So the Foundation has withdrawn the proposal rather than agree to terms that run counter to its own mission.

We're disappointed to have been put in the position where we had to make this decision, because we believe our proposed project would offer invaluable advances to the Python and greater open source community, protecting millions of PyPI users from attempted supply-chain attacks. The proposed project would create new tools for automated proactive review of all packages uploaded to PyPI, rather than the current process of reactive-only review.

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 31 points 3 weeks ago

The EU should be stepping in. The entire economic region is dependent on python and even introduced some supply chain security requirements, so this would help resolve those.

[–] __siru__@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I am glad that PSF is not bowing to these requirements in order to get the grant.

[–] Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That claw-back rule... wow. "Sure, we'll give you lots of money, but if we ask for it back you have to give it to us"

[+] logging_strict@programming.dev -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] __siru__@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe I missed something in the original article, but where are you getting the info that these extra requirements would expire if the PSF held the money for two years?

[–] logging_strict@programming.dev 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The PSF is a relatively small organization, operating with an annual budget of around $5 million per year, with a staff of just 14. $1.5 million over two years would have been quite a lot of money for us, and easily the largest grant we’d ever received.

source

Also thank you mod for censoring all my comments. You must prefer an echo chamber where open debate is stifled. This is also how the PSF operates. If a position cannot stand up to scrutiny, the go to tactic is to censor all opposing voices.

So the comments deleting mod has proven my point beyond any reasonable doubt.

Blockchain solves this!

Group think is a disease. The US gov't is in the right to defund the disease of DEI. And the PSF laughably is cooperating rather than adapting.

i oppose the group think that produced those articles proudly virtue signaling their failure and reframing it as a moral victory.