From the outside, the actions of the foundation are interpreted as representative of the community’s values as a whole. And the issue being discussed now is not whether the foundation (speaking for the community, ideally) should endorse or condemn a defense contractor. It’s simply about whether “we” should endorse them or not.
In other words, the default action is to not accept a sponsorship, and express no particular point of view. To accept the sponsorship would be to take a positive action towards endorsement. A move that would directly contradict the views of so so many people in the community, as demonstrated so thoroughly in this very thread. In that light, I find it hard to see a justification for accepting such a sponsorship.
Not accepting would, if anything, express that the community’s point of view on defense contractors is “no consensus,” which, also looking at this thread, feels accurate.
Now if another company offered to pay for the foundation to explicitly condemn them, or if your view is that the foundation must accept sponsorship deals from defense contractors (which I don’t believe is the opinion of anyone here), then there would be an argument to be made in opposition of not accepting.
Taking action and choosing to endorse Andruil would be an insult to a very large portion of the community, which if nothing else, would be a violation of our goal of providing a safe and welcoming community. Especially when the default (no action) is so easy and so uncontroversial that it literally happens automatically.
If a decision really does come down to just the number of people that are against sponsoring Andruil, then please add my +1 to that number.