Why should a conference be held somewhere where people will be excluded by virtue of their existence?

because that would limit conferences in a lot of places.

people everywhere should be able to hold their own conferences.

the question is, should the PSF fund them? that should be answerable with a clear yes or no in a timely manner, and not like it happened.

holding a conference named pycon requires permission from the PSF trademark workgroup. that permission has obviously been given. giving such a permission but then denying funding would be contradictory, but still be better than delaying decisions.

further consider that the people organizing the conference are not the ones making the exclusions. those are beyond their control. supporting the organizers might actually be a good thing. at least it is worth a consideration.

I don't disagree with any of this. People in those areas should be able to hold their own conferences, and should get questions on funding answered in a timely manner. The point I wanted to make was that there are valid reasons to not hold (or fund) a conference based on local laws.

right, but those reasons could have been considered when the permission to host an event called pycon was sought and given.

i'd like to assume that once i have permission to organize a pycon, then funding is a mere question of how much, and whether the expenses are appropriate, not whether it should be funded at all.

I don't disagree. Communication is important and allowing use of the name but withholding funding, unless something was communicated beforehand, sends mixed messages.