Perhaps you should do some research before judging the decision making of the PSF.

He did some research. Now he is validating it.

Believe it or not, not all researched information is accurate. And even when it is accurate it isn't always interpreted correctly. It is not sufficient to simply research something.

One must also discuss it. That allows revealing what one thinks they know, to help realize what they don't through coordination with others.

That is what discussion is for. If he already had a perfect picture, what would the point of talking about it be? There isn't one.

▲

cmrdporcupine 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Right? "I find these matters are often more complex than I can understand from a headline but this feels like..."

Drive-by insinuation rather than argumentation.

▲

guywithahat an hour ago | parent [-]

I mean there were conversations in closed rooms nobody outside of the room knows about. What we know publicly is they refused the funding because it required them to drop DEI activities, which not only would have solved their funding issues but was the morally correct thing to do. The PSF should be focused on improving Python, it shouldn't be a political organization.

	▲	nedbat an hour ago \| parent [-]
		OK, thanks for making your position clear. You disagree with some of the core mission of the PSF. Luckily you are in the minority and the PSF is carrying on.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]