I know, from personal experience, that it takes a significant amount of effort to research, write, revise, and submit a decently plausible funding proposal to the US government's National Science Foundation. A successful NSF proposal is as tightly structured as a sonnet, even beyond the explicit requirements given in the solicitation; every diagram or chart, every paragraph, every sentence of those 20-30 pages has to hit a particular mark. I had written or co-written several grant proposals -- including multiple successful ones that garnered hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding -- before the first time I worked on an NSF proposal. The NSF process is a different beast.

Many organizations, every year, submit thoughtful proposals that the NSF rejects. It's a competitive process; the savviest researchers, with the best proposal-writing skills and the keenest senses of what the program officers want to fund and how to convey the worth and potential of their proposals to the reviewers, still don't assume they'll consistently get approved for funding.

The Python Software Foundation ought to be proud that the NSF approved their proposal, which would have provided USD $1.5 million over two years "to address structural vulnerabilities in Python and PyPI":

We were honored when, after many months of work, our proposal was recommended for funding, particularly as only 36% of new NSF grant applicants are successful on their first attempt. We became concerned, however, when we were presented with the terms and conditions we would be required to agree to if we accepted the grant.

And, everyone connected with Python ought to be proud that the PSF had the integrity to turn it down.

In the end, however, the PSF simply can’t agree to a statement that we won’t operate any programs that “advance or promote” diversity, equity, and inclusion, as it would be a betrayal of our mission and our community. 

The word "foundation" in the names of both the PSF and NSF isn't just a fancy word for "organization." It implies stewardship, and stability, and a commitment to something bigger than just the mundane activities of executing this year's goals. Both the NSF and the PSF are meant to take a longer view, investing in the foundational endeavors that enable whole worlds of possibility.

We know that science and industry make more progress, lift everyone up more, when the set of people who make the decisions and the discoveries have wide, varied perspectives. When everyone feels safe to learn and contribute. And we know that, because of past biases and current conditions, it takes deliberate effort to invest in that foundation of safety and opportunity.

Seth Larson, Security Developer-in-Residence at PSF, described the NSF grant situation during a podcast interview:

it was a hard decision, but it was an easy decision

Yeah. As the saying goes, when you know who you are, you know what to do.

So many institutions in the US are failing this test right now. They are corrupting themselves to pursue a mirage of safety. Universities, news and entertainment publishers, nonprofits, platform companies, the list goes on. I wrote part of this post in late October, then was reminded to finish and post it this week when a friend lamented the effects of this corruption on research in her field.

The Python Software Foundation, like The Carpentries in a similar situation (a few months prior), is passing the test. I'm grateful and proud to be a member.

References

Tip of the hat to a very similar and much more timely post on this, "The PSF puts principles first" (Oct. 29th) by Dan Shernicoff.

More on the PSF funding situation:

Subsequent PSF blog posts about funding: "Open Infrastructure is Not Free: PyPI, the Python Software Foundation, and Sustainability" and "Connecting the Dots: Understanding the PSF’s Current Financial Outlook".

David Cassel's coverage at The New Stack. Includes links to several blog, forum, & social media posts/comments.

Interviews with Deb Nicholson (PSF Executive Director) and with Dawn Wages (former chair of the PSF board) and Loren Crary (Deputy Executive Director of the PSF).

When the PSF announced its decision, several donors banded together to match contributions. That match has ended but the PSF is running its end-of-year fundraiser now.