Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Free software project grants

[Andrew Savory]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Marc Eberhard wrote:

> I wouldn't like to see the initial stage of the process to be public, as it
> might be considered embarrassing to apply and being turned down. This way,
> nobody knows who has been turned down or has unsuccessfully applied. I
> believe this is a strong encouragement to apply. You don't loose anything,
> if you don't get the application through. I think, this is a very sensible
> approach.

I don't think we should worry too much about people not applying. There'll
certainly be less money than applicants.

I think the more open the process, the better. What do we have to lose?

By being open, people with similar ideas might be able to offer
collaboration or assistance for applications.

> > I think it would be a good idea if members got to indicate their opinion
> > of each bid, too. This should be in association with a review board, since
> > we couldn't guarantee continuity in the member review process.
>
> I do have reservations against making the bidding stage public for the above
> mentioned reasons. I agree, that transparency would be nice here, but I
> personally believe, this would put people off from applying. Anonymous
> numbers should be published in any case, like total number of applications,
> success rate, average amount bid for, average amount granted, etc.

I'd like to see a high level of member oversight, especially if it's
membership money being spent. What do others think?

> > It would also be a good idea to draw up criteria for a FLOSS project, for
> > example:
> >
> > - is the project original?
>
> We might want to fund projects, which are not really original, but instead
> provided essential localisation features for the UK, which would be unlikely
> to be implemented by someone. The UK tax tables are just one good example of
> this.

Indeed. But if there are already three projects providing localisation, it
would be silly to fund a 4th. If "originality" (ie, first project of this
type, rather than an 'original' idea) is a criteria, it would make people
think carefully about what they are doing and check who else is doing it.
Maybe a bid would be "fund this existing project to help them achieve
milestone X". I'd like to see that sort of thing!

> > - does it fulfill a genuine need?
> > - does it represent good value for money?
> > - does it have support from the community?
> > - etc
>
> My suggestion would be to start without such guidelines, to see which
> applications we get.

I really think that's a bad idea. If we don't know what we're looking for
or any criteria, it will be very hard to decide between competing bids,
and not fair on future bids if criteria are suddenly introduced.

I'd suggest some sort of standard bid template for people to fill in,
asking a set number of questions to ensure some minimum information is
available about each bid.

> As we gain more experience, how much money we can realistically expect
> to be able to spend and how much we can actually achieve with that
> money, we can then draw our conclusions and draft guidelines. Instead of
> guidelines or in addition, we might also decide at some stage to issue
> calls for specific applications to direct the process.

We've seen several times that not knowing how we're going to do something
invariably ends in chaos and confusion. The "elections" are a great
example of this. Please, hammer out the details in advance.

> I'm at least unsure, if member comments on applications are helpful.
> Probably rather against it. As a compromise, I would suggest to leave this
> decision to the applicant. If they're happy to have the details of the
> application being published before a decision is made by the board, that's
> fine. If not, we treat it as confidential. Would that work?

I'm wary of this, and at least part of my misgivings are on how the board
would be decided. I don't see any disadvantages to being open, other than
your concern about embarassing people. I think the benefits (peer review,
opportunity to make positive enhancements/suggestions before funds are
allocated) outweigh that.

> I agree. As our opinion might change, what we would like to see funded,
> these guidelines should not be part of the framework. I would suggest too,
> that they'll be drafted by the WG and updated as needed. We want to remain
> flexible here.

Yes, but let's get the guidelines in place in advance.


Andrew.

-- 
Andrew Savory                                Email: address@hidden
Managing Director                              Tel:  +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications                  Fax:  +44 (0)700 598 1135
Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/          Web:    www.luminas.co.uk