[Fsfe-uk] RFC: Free software project grants

[Marc Eberhard]

Dear all,

after reflecting a bit on the subject and past emails about UKFSN's success
and first payment to AFFS, I'd like to bring the subject up again.

Obviously, I like to thank Jason first, even though he's brought us into the
situation of actually having to think and do something about the whole issue
now. Thanks for that Jason! :-)

But first of all, let me try to summarise the discussion so far:

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 03:08:24PM +0100, Mike Taylor wrote:
[...]
> My vote goes to number two.  I doubt that, in the short term at least,
> UKFSN is going to make anywhere near enough profit to fund, say, one
> full-time developer, so there's not _that_ much this money can do in
> terms of up-front funding.  But _any_ unlooked-for prize is always
> extremely welcome -- not to mention that it generates much, much more
> publicity.
[...]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 04:24:34PM +0100, Simon Waters wrote:
[...]
> The prize idea seems rather arbitary to me. Not that there aren't a lot
> of good developers who deserve rewarding, but I think it would be better
> to allocate the money to people who ask for it, as we can be sure they
> want/need the money. re: AC's - I have a good job at Redhat - send
> donations to someone who needs it more.
[...]

I have thought about the idea of a prize for a while now and I believe, it
would be the wrong thing to do with the money from UKFSN. Why? A prize only
rewards work already done. It doesn't encourage or motivated directly and in
a targetted manner to write specific new code or prepare data, which would
be of great interest for people in the UK. It would thus be a pretty passive
thing. We wait what happens anyway and then we reward, what we consider to
be good.

I strongly believe, we should use the money in a more active way to get
involved in the creation of or adaption of free software to the UK including
UK specific data needed for these. That would surely enable us to contribute
in a well targetted manner and on whatever front it appears to be most
fruitful or necessary.

> I appreciate in a relatively small community awarding cash on request
> might create some interesting conflicts of interest, but for as long as
> the sums are small and the awards are clearly earmarked for specific
> issues (hosting costs for specific server, adding this UK specific
> feature to a free software application, etc), shouldn't be too
> controversial.

Even larger sums shouldn't cause too much grief, if the allocation process
is considered to be fair by most people, I would imagine. It is thus a
question of proper guidelines and sufficient transparency of the whole
process.

> I would want to avoid a big burocratic process, the kind of thing a
> group could ask for, and know if it was likely to get any assistance
> quite quicky (days and weeks, not months). "XXLUG/PROJECTZZ wants to run
> stand at exhibition Y cost is NNN, we need MMM extra". Such requests
> might also be met with less financial responses "AFFS, or member D,
> already has stand at exhibition, go speak with them".
[...]

It surely shouldn't get as bureaucratic as the average research council in
the UK, however a written project proposal including time lines, milestones
and targets should be included. That is the only way for us to prove, that
the money actually had some positive effect for the free software community
and the UK as a whole.

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 04:30:44PM +0100, Jason Clifford wrote:
[...]
> 1. Lots of people continue to state that one area where Free Software is 
> poor is business accounting (financial) and it's true but not for the 
> reason a lot of people put forward. The software does exist for small 
> companies. The reason, in my view, is that things such as tax and paye 
> tables are not available and the code for them not written.
> 
> This is something that can be addressed without much expense at all. 
> Writing the code to handle the data is fairly straight forward. Getting 
> the data and publishing it in a timely manner is the thing and it need not 
> cost a lot of money.
[...]

Apart from governmental data I can think of many other interesting bits and
pieces of information, which would be useful for existing free software
packages and which would greatly enhance their attractiveness for private
users and enterprises. I must admit, that I completely overlooked this
point.

As most of you know, my background as a researcher has brought me in contact
with several UK and international organisations funding research. It strikes
me, that apart from AFFS offering grants in a similar manner, we could at
the same time try to attract funds from elsewhere to increase the amount of
money available for free software projects. That way we might both be able
to fund projects from money donated to us or help projects to get bids
through with other agencies or organisations. A project in need of help,
could get free advice and support form us, as to which route might be the
most effective one to win support. This should probably be done within a new
workgroup within AFFS and I propose to create such a group now. Obviously,
I'm happy to take charge of this group, if nobody else volunteers. It could
be called "Grants and fundraising WG".

But to come back to the specific problem on how to spend the money donated
to us for this purpose, here are my thoughts... Comments, opinions and
suggestions are very welcome as always!

  AFFS free software grants
  -------------------------

AFFS is able to offer direct funding for free software projects. This
includes the production of source code as well as other relevant tasks, such
as preparation or creation of data for existing free software applications.

As with every other organisation, AFFS's resources are unfortunately limited
and it will never be able to fund all projects proposed. However, every
effort is made to distribute resources in a fair and effective way.

Selection or rejection of a project proposal does not constitute a statement
of the quality or value of a project in any way. Rejected proposals can be
resubmitted at any time.

The whole selection process will be as open and transparent as possible,
both to give the initiators of proposals enough feedback and to allow third
parties to assess the fairness of the allocation process as a whole.

To apply for a grant, a written and signed proposal must be send to the
AFFS. The proposal must list all resources needed for the completion of the
project in detail. This includes costs for staffing, equipment and other
expenses. Should a grant be awarded, it will be limited to this total amount
in the project proposal. No corrections to the total amount will be made for
inflation or other reasons.

The proposal must further outline the work to be undertaken, milestones and
estimated completion dates. A full report of the work actually undertaken
and the achieved targets is required after the completion of the project.

Support from an AFFS grant must be properly acknowledged in the
documentation and other relevant documents of the project including the
grant reference number.

AFFS will from time to time establish a board of referees to decide, which
applications will be accepted. The dates of these meetings will be
publically announced well in advance. The frequency of these boards depends
on the actual funds available for distribution.

No letters of support from third parties are required for a grant
application, however such letters will be taken into account and will be
considered along with the application itself.

There is no limit on the total amount an application can bid for. But it is
obviously clear, that AFFS will not be able to fund projects beyond its
financial capabilities. The amount of money available for a particular round
of funding will be made known along with the announcment of a board meeting
date to give applicants an idea of realistic amounts they can bid for.

The decision of the board if final. There is no possibility to appeal
against the decision of the board. Nevertheless, a rejected grant
application can be resubmitted at any time as stated above. Past rejections
of an application do not influence future decisions of the board concerning
this application.

                             -----------

OK, OK, it's all not bulletproof... but I'm too tired to think of what I
might have forgotten! So I'll stop here and wait for reactions first and get
a few good hours of sleep in the meantime!

Thanks,
Marc
_______________________________________________________________________________

email: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
email: address@hidden, web: http://www.aston.ac.uk/~eberhama/