this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
1416 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

76415 readers
3901 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
1416
Python Foundation rejects $1.5M grant from NSF with "no-DEI" strings (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by brianpeiris@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world
143 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

National Science Foundation (NSF) had offered $1.5 million to address structural vulnerabilities in Python and the Python Package Index (PyPI), but the Foundation quickly became dispirited with the terms of the grant it would have to follow.

"These terms included affirming the statement that we 'do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws,'" Crary noted. "This restriction would apply not only to the security work directly funded by the grant, but to any and all activity of the PSF as a whole."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 6 points 13 hours ago

The python foundation should have asked them to define the terms of the contract in a document. At least that way we would have had a legal definition of what woke means in their eyes. Because I'm reasonably confident that even they don't know.