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.
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.
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.
Is he in the minority though? Remind me again who won the popular vote two years ago.
Turns out many people aren't big on racial discrimination "but hip and cool B-) this time". When the core principle of an organization is at conflict with the concept of hiring any ethnicity with no specific preference, you have a racist organization.
> You disagree with some of the core mission of the PSF.
It seems he disagrees with the approach rather than the core mission; suggesting that instead of relying on reparations, to use those resources instead to fix the core issues with Python that demand those reparations in the first place.
