[tuetuopay]

> How would you feel about the PSF (or any other society you sponsor) helping conferences in places you'd not be able to attend because you simply would not be safe there?

I would feel very good, because those places are often ignored from such events. A conference in a place is done first for the locals. Saying to all of africa "sorry you can't have a conference this year because the westerners that have 10 a year would not be able to come" is what would make me feel bad. Add on top of that coming to western conferences from africa is usually way too expensive for the median income there. Oh and travel issue for passports when getting into the US or Europe.

I've been reading this whole thread as "westerners being entitled to go to an african conference, run by and for people in africa"

[leadingthenet]

I agree with you, but conversely, the organisers shouldn't feel entitled to Western funding either, in that case.

[tuetuopay]

Is the PSF western "by design" or "de facto", the latter being the foundation having "accidentally" only western people on board? In theory the PSF should be worldwide with people from everywhere. Otherwise we should call it "EU+US PSF".

However the reality is, it is staffed by westerners and funded by western companies. So it's a de-facto western foundation.

[leadingthenet]

Of course, it's not an accident, but let's not kid ourselves: Python was originally developed by a Westerner, in the West, and the vast majority of PSF funding also originates in the West. To look at that history and then be surprised that it's run by Westerners seems silly to me.

> In theory the PSF should be worldwide with people from everywhere.

Why?

[tuetuopay]

I never said being surprised. I think we agree on the state we are in.

As for why, well, precisely to avoid the bias at hand here. The tech, despite originating from the west, is what it is: a tech. Especially something as ubiquitous as Python, which is far from being scoped to the west.

We go to great lengths for equity in such boards, promoting openness and such: more women, more LGBT+, people of color, ... But even black people that are included are most often than not are afro-americans living in the west, and not africans living in africa. We always forget about foreign users that are also a minority, except a remote one we can shrug off, unless they are vocal enough.

That said, I acknowledge it may not be possible, the foundation likely being an US nonprofit, so integrating foreigners in the board may be extremely difficult.

[glennpratt]

> the foundation likely being an US nonprofit, so integrating foreigners in the board may be extremely difficult.

As far as I know, it's not a problem. At first glance, PSF board and officers bios appear fairly international currently.

A foreign controlled, foreign benefitting organization that sends nearly all contributions to foreign organizations might not be tax exempt in the US, but that doesn't sound like the PSF.

[rbanffy]

> Is the PSF western "by design" or "de facto"

Since diversity and inclusivity are core values, I'll dodge the question and just say it's inclusive by design.