Community
Participate
Working Groups
Friends of Eclipse is fine and lets the ecosystem benefit. However, individual project donations would help especially smaller projects without commercial backing. Thus please add functionality that allows projects to embedded a "Donate to this project" button on their website and have the foundation handle the backend transactions. I think it is best if the foundation still receives the donation (for legal/tax deductible reasons) but the project gets to choose how the money is eventually spent. My concrete use case is, that the ECF project needs new build hardware.
> My concrete use case is, that the ECF project needs new build hardware. IBM just donated two blazing fast build servers to the Foundation. Isn't it better economics is we all consolidate our build infrastructure?
(In reply to comment #1) > IBM just donated two blazing fast build servers to the Foundation. Isn't it > better economics is we all consolidate our build infrastructure? Which unfortunately cannot be used to build non-EPLed code.
To get a way from the build server story and broaden the scope... think travel expenses for conferences, telephone costs for con calls (pretty Wim Jongman will jump in on this) or just the hardware/resources that us developers use to write code.
(In reply to comment #3) Yes, there is a problem for projects that are not backed up by companies. We are very lucky that there are still companies and individuals that invest in development time for projects like Equinox, ECF, Platform, JDT, CDT, etc.. I learned from Arnoud Engelfriet that there are three types of projects: Base, Commodity and Differentiator. Base: If we look at end users, nobody gives a damn about the base because it is just not visible. What does a user care if Eclipse runs on Equinox or on a homegrown executable or if it runs on Swing or on SWT? Commodity: These are projects that are an expected part of the product but that the user cares about. In case of a IDE, think of completion, refactoring, project management, team support, etcetera. The user cares about these things but they are a part of every Java IDE and if you don't have it, you are not in the game. Differentiator: Now we come to the interesting business projects because now we get into stuff that no other IDE has. Think projects as Mylyn, Swordfish, Rienna, etcetera. This is an interesting business area and you see that these projects are backed up by companies who can and will help their committers and contributors with infrastructure. If you are a project that operates in a Base or Commodity project and not backed up by a company than it can be hard to get funding. A recent example is the lack of telecommunication infrastructure. I end up paying $40 every week for a teleconference call with our group because the foundation does not have a local dial-in for my country. Use Skype you say. Sure we will if it is possible but you know that Skype does not always operate as expected when teleconferencing with people around the world and we don't want to waste time with technical issues. The foundation has no money to pay for this infrastructure. I can understand that but who will pay for it then? So it can be very hard for a Base or Commodity project to get proper funding. And this is also something that the Foundation should be aware of. I think that the Base and Commodity projects do not get enough attention and respect. Not only in terms of funding, but also in terms of marketing power, love and mentions. Therefore, I think this is a good idea.
so now I have to post something :-) its Riena just one "n" (and yes that does matter since everyone seems to take the freedom to spell it wrong in various different ways, its not just you and I dont want to leave it there uncorrected.) The other thing is the 40$ question. So I myself do periodically telcos over the ocean, in part with just one other person (even with video and screen sharing) and also for stuff like Rt-PMC calls where you dial a number (either local or canadian/us). I am doing this with Skype in the last 2-3 years and spent something like 15$ (for the whole time) on my own expense. Yes there where sometimes minor issues (and I only have regular DSL on myside) but in general it works pretty ok. I can certainly understand that you guys care about money (I do too) but I really find this bug being on very shaky ground. The reason you are looking for money seems to change with every comment that is made. I heard build server, your own desktop computer, travel expenses now its telco costs and we only had 4 comments. I think its great if you find funding, but I also find it pretty unreasonable to believe that the Eclipse Foundation will collect money for you that you can use to buy a build server to build code that for whatever reason is not EPL and therefore outside of the ECF Eclipse project. Maybe I am not getting it and I am really deep in the licenses and dependencies of ECF, but it sounds like you want Apple to distribute apps for Android in the Appstore. :-) So again dont get me wrong. Finding a way to get funding is a good idea. I am not sure why it is the task of the Eclipse Foundation. Why dont you guys place a PayPal Button on your homepage ? :-)
(In reply to comment #5) > The other thing is the 40$ question. So I myself do periodically telcos over > the ocean, in part with just one other person (even with video and screen > sharing) and also for stuff like Rt-PMC calls where you dial a number (either > local or canadian/us). I am doing this with Skype in the last 2-3 years and > spent something like 15$ (for the whole time) on my own expense. Yes there > where sometimes minor issues (and I only have regular DSL on myside) but in > general it works pretty ok. Great that you are one happy Skype customer. I am not so happy since I use Linux and the Skype client is years behind the Windows one? So I guess it's one more example why we need donations on the project-level so we can all enjoy the benefits of Windows. > I can certainly understand that you guys care about money (I do too) but I > really find this bug being on very shaky ground. The reason you are looking for > money seems to change with every comment that is made. I heard build server, > your own desktop computer, travel expenses now its telco costs and we only had > 4 comments. That's because it's a list of examples and not our personal wish list. > I think its great if you find funding, but I also find it pretty unreasonable > to believe that the Eclipse Foundation will collect money for you that you can > use to buy a build server to build code that for whatever reason is not EPL and > therefore outside of the ECF Eclipse project. Maybe I am not getting it and I > am really deep in the licenses and dependencies of ECF, but it sounds like you > want Apple to distribute apps for Android in the Appstore. :-) Again, a build server is just one more example projects might need money for. And this bug is really not about technical or political reasons why ECF can't have non EPL code at eclipse.org. In fact, it isn't about ECF at all. > So again dont get me wrong. Finding a way to get funding is a good idea. I am > not sure why it is the task of the Eclipse Foundation. The foundation has already all the technology set up and (to my knowledge) is able to write out tax deduction due to its non-profit status. > Why dont you guys place a PayPal Button on your homepage ? :-) What do you mean by "your homepage"? http://www.eclipse.org/ecf or some other page not hosted at eclipse.org?
(In reply to comment #5) > so now I have to post something :-) > > its Riena just one "n" (and yes that does matter since everyone seems to take > the freedom to spell it wrong in various different ways, its not just you and I stand corrected. > The other thing is the 40$ question. So I myself do periodically telcos over > the ocean, in part with just one other person (even with video and screen > sharing) and also for stuff like Rt-PMC calls where you dial a number (either > local or canadian/us). I am doing this with Skype in the last 2-3 years and > spent something like 15$ (for the whole time) on my own expense. Yes there > where sometimes minor issues (and I only have regular DSL on myside) but in > general it works pretty ok. Good for you. But beside the point. > > I can certainly understand that you guys care about money (I do too) but I > really find this bug being on very shaky ground. The reason you are looking for > money seems to change with every comment that is made. I heard build server, > your own desktop computer, travel expenses now its telco costs and we only had > 4 comments. Why are you being so offensive? There are many many reasons why a project needs funding. That is exactly the reason for this bug, i think. > > I think its great if you find funding, but I also find it pretty unreasonable > to believe that the Eclipse Foundation will collect money for you that you can > use to buy a build server to build code that for whatever reason is not EPL Why is that so strange? My company and probably yours too collect money for the Eclipse foundation. Is it so strange to ask for infrastructure to be a better project? The donate button is just to start the discussion. > > So again dont get me wrong. Finding a way to get funding is a good idea. I am It does not sound like you think it is a good idea. > not sure why it is the task of the Eclipse Foundation. Why dont you guys place > a PayPal Button on your homepage ? :-) Why is it not the task of the foundation?
> The foundation has already all the technology set up and (to my knowledge) is > able to write out tax deduction due to its non-profit status. We don't do this today. It is my understanding that we can not issue tax-deductible receipts since we are not a charitable organization. From http://eclipse.org/donate : Eclipse Foundation Inc. is a not-for-profit, member supported corporation. Please note that contributions or gifts to the Eclipse Foundation Inc. are not tax deductible as charitable contributions.
I am intrigued by the idea. But I'm not sure that we can make it happen. The Bylaws [1] explicitly forbid the Eclipse Foundation from funding members. -- Section 11.4 Expenses. Each Member will bear its own costs and expenses in connection with its performance of its rights and duties in respect of the Eclipse Foundation, including, without limitation, compensation of its employees, and all travel and living expenses associated with any Member’s participation in any meetings and conferences called in connection with the activities of the Eclipse Foundation. -- Before you say, "but, ah, I am not a member", read the Membership Agreement [2]. It doesn't say anything about funding projects, so there may be a loophole there. But who would receive the funds. If we cannot fund a member, how do we actually get the money to a project? I'm no expert in such things, but I believe that the project would have to be some kind of legal entity. I don't believe that we can do anything here without first changing the Bylaws. Frankly, that's a big deal. It's not impossible. [1]http://eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse%20BYLAWS%202008_07_24%20Final.pdf [2]http://eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse%20MEMBERSHIP%20AGMT%202010_01_05%20Final.pdf
(In reply to comment #9) <stuff deleted> > I don't believe that we can do anything here without first changing the Bylaws. > Frankly, that's a big deal. It's not impossible. > > [1]http://eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse%20BYLAWS%202008_07_24%20Final.pdf > [2]http://eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse%20MEMBERSHIP%20AGMT%202010_01_05%20Final.pdf So how did this bug get twisted into yet another recitation of the reasons why the EF can't support/do anything for the projects (other than support/mkt the projects that are owned/run by the corporate membership?) The intent of this bug, as I understand it, was not another request to have the EF support the projects (why it doesn't actually do that is still a mystery to me from the community value-creation point of view, but it's a *separate* issue), but rather to explore a path where external support (i.e. hw and software donations, and other resources) could be directed to support individual projects rather than provided to the EF in general through membership dues (where it then goes...unequally in my view...to all/many of the projects). For the projects that are creating value and community through their technical work, in some cases the receivers of that value wish to sustain not just the EF in general, but the project through which they are getting value specifically. For ECF, as well as other non-corporate-run EF projects there are consumers of the project that wish to have their contributions of resources directed to support *that project* (i.e. ECF in this case, but the bug is intentionally not focused on ECF...since ECF is not the only project in this situation). For code contributions, testing, documentation this is easy and already done for ECF...i.e. we accept those contributions and gratefully incorporate them. Our community is flourishing in terms of contributions, and everyone benefits from that. But for other kinds of support (e.g. build infrastructure, payment for committer consulting/testing or other integration work, targeted bug fixes/enhancements that require committer-level of expertise to address) the current model is that all such resource contributions go through the EF rather than directly to the project. And this creates a problem (as Wim pointed out) of matching value creation with the consumer's desire to support that value creation.
(In reply to comment #9) > It doesn't say anything about funding projects, so there may be a loophole > there. But who would receive the funds. If we cannot fund a member, how do we > actually get the money to a project? I'm no expert in such things, but I > believe that the project would have to be some kind of legal entity. I don't think the foundation would have to pass the money to the project. Why not just have something like a project account which receives the donations and the committers send expense reports to the foundatoin which are payed out of that account.
(In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) > I am intrigued by the idea. Great. So am I. > > It doesn't say anything about funding projects, so there may be a loophole I like loopholes. It should not be individuals that bear the cost of running a project. We should find a solution for that. The first idea is the have a donate button on the eclipse.org site. This money would flow to the foundation but be used to pay certain appointed project costs. Another idea is to reserve some of the Foundation's income for projects. Maybe a project could file a "resource shortage request" and if such thing was granted by the foundation, that project gets a special protected status (like we did with Greece). Maybe we could invent a "Consumed Point" list. If e.g. Riena consumes Equinox then Equinox gets one point. That would not be hard to calculate. A project can get the special status if it has at least x% consumer points. Maybe we can ask/demand big Eclipse Consumers for resources e.g. Eclipse is free if you have less that 51 employees working with the IDE otherwise you have to pay. What else can we think of. Of course, we can have many ideas, but the Foundation must be willing to act. I will end with a previous statement. "It should not be the individuals that have to pay the costs."
I've made sure that all three of the elected Committer reps are on the cc list for this bug. I am asking them to consolidate the feedback from the committers and bring a proposal to the Board. This is *not* an EMO decision.
(In reply to comment #10) > The intent of this bug, as I understand it, was not another request to have the > EF support the projects (why it doesn't actually do that is still a mystery to > me from the community value-creation point of view, but it's a *separate* > issue), but rather to explore a path where external support (i.e. hw and > software donations, and other resources) could be directed to support > individual projects rather than provided to the EF in general through > membership dues (where it then goes...unequally in my view...to all/many of the > projects). I agree that the intent of this bug is to make the foundation a 'channel' between a donor and a particular project. However does foundation even support any project in particular? Its the various companies who pay the committers and take care of other expenses. (see comment 9 as well). > For the projects that are creating value and community through their technical > work, in some cases the receivers of that value wish to sustain not just the EF > in general, but the project through which they are getting value specifically. > For ECF, as well as other non-corporate-run EF projects there are consumers of > the project that wish to have their contributions of resources directed to > support *that project* (i.e. ECF in this case, but the bug is intentionally not > focused on ECF...since ECF is not the only project in this situation). > For code contributions, testing, documentation this is easy and already done > for ECF...i.e. we accept those contributions and gratefully incorporate them. > Our community is flourishing in terms of contributions, and everyone benefits > from that. > > But for other kinds of support (e.g. build infrastructure, payment for > committer consulting/testing or other integration work, targeted bug > fixes/enhancements that require committer-level of expertise to address) the > current model is that all such resource contributions go through the EF rather > than directly to the project. And this creates a problem (as Wim pointed out) > of matching value creation with the consumer's desire to support that value > creation. I am a firm believer in the saying - 'there is no free lunch'. Now if a project is creating value it stands to reason that someone should be willing to pay for it. Maybe the right answer is to join/start an organization like EclipseSource which does 'sponsored development' (http://eclipsesource.com/en/services/sponsored-eclipse-development/). And if a project is of value/critical to someone, that someone will be willing to pay for it. This bug here sounds like turning Eclipse Foundation into an organization doing 'sponsored development'. I love the idea of sponsored development - developers do need to get paid :) -, but I wonder if involving Eclipse Foundation in it is the right way to go.
(In reply to comment #14) > This bug here sounds like turning Eclipse Foundation into an organization doing > 'sponsored development'. I love the idea of sponsored development - developers > do need to get paid :) -, but I wonder if involving Eclipse Foundation in it is > the right way to go. This bug is _not_ about sponsored development that comes with a dedicated budget, contracts, milestones, tasks and whatnot. I am not asking the foundation to fund projects. However, projects driven by individuals (AFAIK the majority of committers today are individuals) do not have the financial backing of a corporate. Thus they require other channels to raise money to afford those tools used in day to day development. This can be a new build/test machine, a license for a certain software tool or just the phone bill. Saying that those projects have to start a company just to continue their work, sounds a lot like the EF does not work for projects driven by individuals. Is this so?
(In reply to comment #15) In the end, projects have a lot of freedom of what they want to do when they are hosted at Eclipse.org... of course there's the EDP to follow and other things (e.g., if you join the Helios release). I don't think there's anything in the EDP that prevents you from asking for donations on your project page. Am I wrong here Wayne?
(In reply to comment #15) > Saying that those projects have to start a company just to continue their work, > sounds a lot like the EF does not work for projects driven by individuals. Is > this so? That's really not fair. Sorry if we're not scratching your particular itch. But the suggestion that we don't support individual committers with equal enthusiasm offends me.
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > > IBM just donated two blazing fast build servers to the Foundation. Isn't it > > better economics is we all consolidate our build infrastructure? > > Which unfortunately cannot be used to build non-EPLed code. Just so I understand... you are hoping that Friends of Eclipse will fund ECF to obtain a build server that they'll use to build non-EPL code that cannot be distributed from eclipse.org. Am I understanding this properly? Who would own the build machine?
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #10) > I am a firm believer in the saying - 'there is no free lunch'. Now if a project > is creating value it stands to reason that someone should be willing to pay for > it. Maybe the right answer is to join/start an organization like EclipseSource If you have read my rant in comment #4, then you see that that is not always true. What is the reason to pay for SWT maintenance? Do you think there is some company that says. Wow, I am going to make money if I go full speed into the SWT project? No. If we want windows 7/8/9 osx/10/11/12 support in SWT we have together decide that we want this. Why would one company pay for what thousands of others consume. That is not realistic. Your model stops at some point.
(In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #15) > That's really not fair. Sorry if we're not scratching your particular itch. But > the suggestion that we don't support individual committers with equal > enthusiasm offends me. Wayne, why is this not fair? You say that the individual committer gets as much attention as the strategic member? And I don't think Markus wants to be scratched. He just wants ideas on how to make better projects. Let us all be careful to focus the discussion on the problem.
(In reply to comment #20) > Wayne, why is this not fair? You say that the individual committer gets as much > attention as the strategic member? Yes.
(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > Just so I understand... you are hoping that Friends of Eclipse will fund ECF to > obtain a build server that they'll use to build non-EPL code that cannot be > distributed from eclipse.org. Am I understanding this properly? > > Who would own the build machine? Let's get this straight and take ECF as an example. At ECF we get a lot of project proposals and ideas for development. Some ideas have to be developed before they are approved and some never make it into Eclipse because of EPL related issues (think supporting other licences and what have you). Also, we want to supply example code. e.g. at ECF we implement the distributed OSGi specification, discovery, etcetera. You cannot showcase this on your own laptop. So we currently pay from our own pocket amazon space to show stuff. We have XMPP providers but for that we would like to have a server for test purposes. So, to answer your question about that we are hoping that FOEs will support ECF and other projects to do non epl stuff that cannot be distributed from Eclipse.org. Yes! And who would own the build machine? The EF I would guess, and hopefully host it as well. But who cares. Maybe the EF could make one development machine available for each legible project. And on this machine we can just hack away.
I went through this all thread and it already look like one of those that will go nowhere. Rather than ranting at each others, I suggest to the partisans of this idea to clearly layout a proposal. For example, who take care of the accounting? How do you insure to your benefactor that the money is well spent? In case you don't have enough funding, how do you decide who gets the money, etc… Scott because he is the lead, Wimg because he is the furthest, Markus because he wrote the most code? It seems to me that this would be the start of problems. I have seen ppl fight over 150 euros and it is pointless and damages the dynamic of the group. Another question this would have to answer is why this needs to be under the EF control rather than being just a paypal account. Also you mention in your debate on some problems, could those be clearly spelled out and justified? For example the "unequal" repartition of the resource is something that worries me and I would like to understand more of what you mean. Anyway these are just my advices.
(In reply to comment #17) > But the suggestion that we don't support individual committers with equal > enthusiasm offends me. I did not mean to imply that the foundation staff shows less enthusiasm when it comes to individual committers. Do not feel offended. > (In reply to comment #18) > Just so I understand... you are hoping that Friends of Eclipse will fund ECF to > obtain a build server that they'll use to build non-EPL code that cannot be > distributed from eclipse.org. Am I understanding this properly? > > Who would own the build machine? Our current build machine [0] builds EPL as well as non-EPL code and the ECF project goes through great length to license as much code under EPL as possible.(currently working my way through 10 years of changelog to clarify IP provenance) However, this is sometimes not feasible or otherwise possible (e.g. GPL) and thus ECF has to have a separate repository/infrastructure. Unfortunately the cloud currently does not offer such infrastructure for free, thus we rely on donations. Having the EF be the official benefactor of these donations certainly work for me as state in my initial comment. But to come up with a different example, we hopefully can all agree on and that does not involve licensing and such is the SoC project. For each student the EF receives $500 upon successful completion. IMO this money should be used to fund our own (Eclipse) Summer of Code (aligned with the souther hemisphere?). Meaning the SoC project decides how the money is spent. Btw. this idea has been touched before without any result though [1]. [0] http://ecf2.osuosl.org/hudson [1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/soc-dev/msg00593.html
(In reply to comment #23) > For example, who take care of the accounting? EF > How do you insure to your > benefactor that the money is well spent? In case you don't have enough funding, > how do you decide who gets the money, etc… Scott because he is the lead, Wimg > because he is the furthest, Markus because he wrote the most code? It seems to > me that this would be the start of problems. I have seen ppl fight over 150 > euros and it is pointless and damages the dynamic of the group. Eclipse has a (committer) voting system in place that works for various things. IMO this system can also handle how project donations are spent. > Another question this would have to answer is why this needs to be under the EF > control rather than being just a paypal account. a) The EF already has a donation system in place. It just has to be extended to allow project level donations b) The EF is a legal entity while a personal paypal account is not. On top of that it certainly looks dingy/less official if a personal account shows up on a project page c) Less work for the individual projects d) A paypal button cannot handle tangible donations
Just a few thoughts/opinions. I admit that projects which developers are not employed by a company with a dedicated budget for OS development have a harder time. But that's a general problem not just and Eclipse specific one. AFAIK there is no rule/policy/guideline at Eclipse that prohibits a project from raising/collecting money or any other tangible contributions. AFAIK there is also nothing that prohibits projects from placing a donate button on their homepage (even on www.eclipse.org/myproject). [hint to committer reps: if there is something than this should be fixed] I don't like to see the Eclipse Foundation collecting and/or spending *any* money on anything not developed at, build on and distributed from Eclipse.org infrastructure under an Eclipse license. IMO that's just against my common sense. I don't know any other OS foundation similar to Eclipse that does something like that (i.e. paying developers to develop stuff that's incompatible to their root of existence). As an Eclipse project you are free to define your scope and set your goals. If you want to develop dozens of things then you have to ensure that you have the resources (time and budget) to do so. Sometimes less is better.
(In reply to comment #26) > I don't like to see the Eclipse Foundation collecting and/or spending *any* > money on anything not developed at, build on and distributed from Eclipse.org > infrastructure under an Eclipse license. IMO that's just against my common > sense. I don't know any other OS foundation similar to Eclipse that does > something like that (i.e. paying developers to develop stuff that's > incompatible to their root of existence). Just to be perfectly clear here. ECF does _not_ produce code that is not licensed EPL. All code written by ECF committers is EPL'ed independently whether it is hosted at Eclipse.org or a secondary repo. But some code builds on top of e.g. GPL and thus cannot be distributed via Eclipse.org. If there would be ways to develop this code on Eclipse.org infrastructure, ECF would not have the need for an secondary home. > As an Eclipse project you are free to define your scope and set your goals. If > you want to develop dozens of things then you have to ensure that you have the > resources (time and budget) to do so. Sometimes less is better. This is exactly what this bug is about, ensuring that individual projects have the time and budget to reach their goals. :)
I think the EF should help individual committers and projects with fundraising. I think everyone in the community benefits from this. Seems like this is the first thing to decide - if there is agreement, then I am sure the mechanics can be worked out.
Helios now has 87 friends (http://www.eclipse.org/helios/friends.php) ....Say if everybody gave around 35$ thats around 3000$. Now how many friends has ECF (or any other project that wants to provide from this new donate button) ? You do the computation and figure out if that buys you any plane ticket or build server. I very much like the proposal about sponsored development because then people get something in return for their money. If its more a symbolic price (since you dont want to commit on any real goal or work) and you fragment that across projects then there is not much money in it for. Just like you if you split the 3000$ from Helios friends thing across all participating projects then every project gets around 10$ (and has to share that among their committers).
(In reply to comment #28) > I think the EF should help individual committers and projects with fundraising. > I think everyone in the community benefits from this. Can you clarify/define "help [...] with fundraising"? For example, if you are thinking about something like providing a template for a donate button on project websites with some marketing on the Eclipse website then I agree. This is similar to what SourceForge offers. Projects can setup and configure a PayPal account and SourceForge promotes the "donate to projects" functionality. SourceForge is not involved in the actual transaction. However if "help [...] with fundraising" means the Foundation should collecting money /on behalf of/ projects then I disagree. I don't like to see the Foundation getting involved into the process of collecting and distributing money for projects because this opens room for monetary conflicts involving the Foundation. I don't like that path. I'd like to make projects discharge for its duties of anything involving money/transactions directly.
(In reply to comment #30) > However if "help [...] with fundraising" means the Foundation should collecting > money /on behalf of/ projects then I disagree. I don't like to see the > Foundation getting involved into the process of collecting and distributing > money for projects because this opens room for monetary conflicts involving the > Foundation. I don't like that path. I'd like to make projects discharge for > its duties of anything involving money/transactions directly. I cannot agree more with this.
(In reply to comment #30) > However if "help [...] with fundraising" means the Foundation should collecting > money /on behalf of/ projects then I disagree. I don't like to see the > Foundation getting involved into the process of collecting and distributing > money for projects because this opens room for monetary conflicts involving the > Foundation. Can you give an example?
How about this idea. If you become a committer to an independent project then you have to pay $xxx,- contribution every year to your project. The foundation then doubles/triples this money. The project charter has to state the amount and where this money can go, e.g. no telephone costs are covered, only for project infrastructure, etc.. So for a project with 8 members and a $200 contribution and a foundation triplication(!) you get $4800 each year. Money not spent flows back into the foundation. Spending is voted for. If you are in more then one project, the Foundation is the only one that pays for the committer. If you are in a company driven project then the company has to cover all costs (same situation as we have now). If a company covers the costs then the company can flag "Project Powered By" on the project page. An independent project could then sell this advertisement space too.
(In reply to comment #30) > (In reply to comment #28) > > I think the EF should help individual committers and projects with fundraising. > > I think everyone in the community benefits from this. > > Can you clarify/define "help [...] with fundraising"? I am thinking of "help" in a very broad sense. If we agree there is value we have to specify the requirements for such help to avoid all sort of issues: - it has to be legal - it has to be fair - done in a way that does not lead to monetary squabbles in projects that EF has to deal with - does not promote bad behaviour like "I won't fix this important but unless I get paid" - fighting over who gets to fix a high priced bug - is not killed by administrative cost - etc (I am sure we can make a long list) When we have the criteria for a good solution, I am sure we can come up with a mechanism. And, I think it is far easier to agree on a set of requirements. Examples of fundraising help: - Some of the membership fees could be donated by the EF - EF could facilitate and encourage companies to donate to a specific project - The proceeds of some paid activity at eclipsecon could be donated (or even just a charity box - developers do not live on beer alone :) - Donate button to "the committer common", and "to a project" - provide hosting service "at cost" taken out of project's funds (i.e. build boxes that are only reached privately by project. - project wish list for tangible donations - etc. Maybe FOE should be a separate organization - a Charity even. I think more would donate: - tax deductible - it is clear that it goes to help develop "the commons" But now I started talking about solutions to a quite undefined problem. Each such suggestion would need to comply with the set of requirements. And some of them may be incredibly stupid since I just made a list from the top of my mind, and I know almost nothing about the difference between a "not for profit" and a "charity". So, I repeat - I think the foundation should help with fundraising, everyone benefits. Are there any principal reasons why that is a bad idea? If so what? (And I am not talking about the mechanics behind how this help should work).
After the discussion has cooled off, I would like to know if the committer reps have it on their agenda for the next board meeting and if, what the actual wording will be. Thanks!
(In reply to comment #35) > After the discussion has cooled off, I would like to know if the committer reps > have it on their agenda for the next board meeting and if, what the actual > wording will be. Thanks! It's on our agenda (to be discussed among the committer reps, with Wayne and Mike, and potentially also at the next board meeting) but we don't have words for it yet. I don't think this issue is ready for a board vot. I expect that we all need time to think about it and discuss it some more. It would help if someone could look at examples of how this problem is addressed in other communities (good and bad examples count) and report back, on this bug or directly to the committer reps. For example, doesn't this problem exist in the Linux and Apache communities as well? Are they doing something about it? What about SourceForge and GitHub? I know they have buttons for donating money, but how does it actually work in detail? For SourceForge, I have found some information here: https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Donations
Sorry, been busy with Helios-related things. I would be fine for individual project to accept donations but things get a bit complicated when distribution is involved with cash. Could projects that aren't driven by larger companies advertise commercial support offerings from the individual committers as a way to help (if that was an option)? In the end, like Boris said, we will have a discussion at the board meeting when committer topics are brought up. The key is to find the real problem at hand... if there are services like a conference line (something like GoToMeeting) that the Eclipse Foundation can provide committers than maybe that's something we can do. We'll update you on the discussion after the board meeting (it happens in a couple weeks)
(In reply to comment #37) > Sorry, been busy with Helios-related things. > > I would be fine for individual project to accept donations but things get a bit > complicated when distribution is involved with cash. Money does not have to pass hands. Would be perfect if projects can send their expense reports after approval by the team (+ PMC) to the EF and the EF pays it out of the project account. > Could projects that aren't > driven by larger companies advertise commercial support offerings from the > individual committers as a way to help (if that was an option)? That can possible be done additionally to donations, but IMO is something completely different as it requires the individual committer to handle everything. This bug is more about: "EF may help projects do fund-raising/donations". > In the end, like Boris said, we will have a discussion at the board meeting > when committer topics are brought up. The key is to find the real problem at > hand... if there are services like a conference line (something like > GoToMeeting) that the Eclipse Foundation can provide committers than maybe > that's something we can do. This works for common service but won't work for specific project requirements. > We'll update you on the discussion after the board meeting (it happens in a > couple weeks) Thanks
The Firebug community is currently discussing this topic as well, see: http://groups.google.com/group/firebug-working-group/browse_thread/thread/5b71f84874cf04bb
I spoke a bit with Stormy from GNOME to see how they did it. For travel, they have a committee that vets requests from the GNOME community. http://live.gnome.org/Travel They also have a policy in place. http://live.gnome.org/Travel/Policy Fedora does something similar... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sponsoring_event_attendees http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sponsoring_event_attendees#Criteria This could be an interesting avenue to explore with Friends of Eclipse money (we could even expand the program more to get people to become a friend but target a donation towards a specific set of projects that a committee could use as input to decide if a request would be approved or not). We could potentially broaden it a bit more outside of travel too! Food for thought. Any comments?
If it causes trouble for the EF to handle donations both legally and administratively, the EF might want to join in the "Software Freedom Conservancy" which provides "member projects with free financial and administrative services"? That way the EF would also be able to issue 501(c)(3) tax deductions for donations. Here's an excerpt from their page [0]. "By joining the Conservancy, member FOSS projects obtain the benefits of a formal legal structure while keeping themselves focused on software development. These benefits include, most notably, the ability to collect earmarked project donations and protection from personal liability for the developers of the project. Another benefit of joining the Conservancy is that projects can use it to hold assets, which are managed by the Conservancy on behalf of and at the direction of the project. The Conservancy is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, so member projects can receive tax-deductible donations to the extent allowed by law." [0] http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ Btw. the paragraph touches another interesting aspect. Does the EF currently protect (individual) committers from personal liability?
I like the way this is going. Here is another thought: Our company is an add-in provider and donates yearly to the foundation. However, we are an add-in provider without a project and we donate because we consume Eclipse in our software. Some of the projects we rely heavily on are the common projects Equinox and ECF. Now we just cannot afford that these projects are struggling and become frustrated because of poor labor conditions. I therefore summon my powers as an add-in provider and would like to call the add-in provider reps to this bug so that they can work together with the committer reps. How about if we form a task force or project group led by the reps and consisting of reps and citizens to do a serious investigation on what is possible. Who of the committer/add-in provider reps wants to take the lead and who of the citizins wants to join this project?
(In reply to comment #42) > I like the way this is going. Here is another thought: > > Our company is an add-in provider and donates yearly to the foundation. > However, we are an add-in provider without a project and we donate because we > consume Eclipse in our software. > > Some of the projects we rely heavily on are the common projects Equinox and > ECF. Now we just cannot afford that these projects are struggling and become > frustrated because of poor labor conditions. > > I therefore summon my powers as an add-in provider and would like to call the > add-in provider reps to this bug so that they can work together with the > committer reps. How about if we form a task force or project group led by the > reps and consisting of reps and citizens to do a serious investigation on what > is possible. > > Who of the committer/add-in provider reps wants to take the lead and who of the > citizins wants to join this project? Hi Wim, just a question regarding your comment. Are you saying that you are considering as an add-in provider (which you dont have to be since you dont have a project yourself) to no longer support EF as much as you did in the past but would rather like to direct the money to the projects that you directly dependend on like Equinox and ECF (and maybe others). And you propose that other add-in providers do the same ? Its an interpretation so I might be wrong, but I am interested what you actually meant. Because at the end of the day it would also affect me (a project you dont depend on) because then the EF has less money which might mean (unless we find a compensation) that we have either less hardware, or download capacity or people in the EF. So further down the road I see a danger that we are breaking "the community" into pieces, if members only directly support certain projects. Right ? I believe supporting the EF has a value by itself and ECF or Equinox or Riena or most other projects would be nothing without the EF. just my thoughts on this... - christian
(In reply to comment #43) <stuff deleted> > So further down the road I see a danger that we are breaking "the community" > into pieces, if members only directly support certain projects. Right ? No, I don't think this is right. As things are now with the projects commercial members generally only directly support the projects...in the form of committer time...that they lead and therefore control: e.g. Compeople supports Riena, IBM supports the Platform, EMF, and other projects, EclipseSource supports RAP and Riena, Oracle supports EclipseLink, Cloudsmith supports Buckminster, etc. To me, this represents a set of loosely connected projects that in fairly rare cases depend upon one another (e.g. Equinox->ECF, ECF-> platform, Buckminster->ECF, Orbit and other projects, EMF->number of projects, etc). Why would it make things any worse than they are (in terms of 'breaking any putative community') to allow add in providers and other consumers to specifically support projects that they depend upon? As well, this is not a zero-sum situation...i.e. consumers seeking to provide resources to individual projects doesn't mean that the shared resources (EF) are necessarily reduced. > > I believe supporting the EF has a value by itself and ECF or Equinox or Riena > or most other projects would be nothing without the EF. Supporting the EF as a whole provides for common resources (essentially IT and IP) for the projects and membership...fine. But if consumers of Eclipse, Equinox, ECF, EclipseLink Riena or whatever project wish to direct resources (other than committer time) to individual projects...because they benefit from the output of *those* projects and *not* all the > 70 other EF projects...then why shouldn't this be allowed for projects that are independently run, diverse, and therefore not dependent for resource upon a single corporate member?
(In reply to comment #44) > (In reply to comment #43) > <stuff deleted> > > So further down the road I see a danger that we are breaking "the community" > > into pieces, if members only directly support certain projects. Right ? > > No, I don't think this is right. As things are now with the projects > commercial members generally only directly support the projects...in the form > of committer time...that they lead and therefore control: e.g. Compeople > supports Riena, IBM supports the Platform, EMF, and other projects, > EclipseSource supports RAP and Riena, Oracle supports EclipseLink, Cloudsmith > supports Buckminster, etc. > > To me, this represents a set of loosely connected projects that in fairly rare > cases depend upon one another (e.g. Equinox->ECF, ECF-> platform, > Buckminster->ECF, Orbit and other projects, EMF->number of projects, etc). > > Why would it make things any worse than they are (in terms of 'breaking any > putative community') to allow add in providers and other consumers to > specifically support projects that they depend upon? > > As well, this is not a zero-sum situation...i.e. consumers seeking to provide > resources to individual projects doesn't mean that the shared resources (EF) > are necessarily reduced. > I agree that this was my interpretation of what I read between the lines from what Wim was writing. He mentioned his add-in membership (but no project) which I assumed meant that we would like to withdraw some or all of the membership money and throw it directly at projects. Thats why I asked for clarification. > > > > > I believe supporting the EF has a value by itself and ECF or Equinox or Riena > > or most other projects would be nothing without the EF. > > > Supporting the EF as a whole provides for common resources (essentially IT and > IP) for the projects and membership...fine. But if consumers of Eclipse, > Equinox, ECF, EclipseLink Riena or whatever project wish to direct resources > (other than committer time) to individual projects...because they benefit from > the output of *those* projects and *not* all the > 70 other EF projects...then > why shouldn't this be allowed for projects that are independently run, diverse, > and therefore not dependent for resource upon a single corporate member? No it shouldnt and it isnt. But on the other hand Wim mentioned earlier, that he has additional fees for phone bills and Markus has travel expenses. (I am just taking them as an example for other possibilites) So what stops Wim or any other person for paying travel expenses for a project or buying them new hardware or pay phone bills. Say he is donating more than the 35$ that an Eclipse friendship costs, what is the benefit that giving it to the EF first ?
(In reply to comment #45) <stuff deleted> > > the output of *those* projects and *not* all the > 70 other EF projects...then > > why shouldn't this be allowed for projects that are independently run, diverse, > > and therefore not dependent for resource upon a single corporate member? > No it shouldnt and it isnt. But on the other hand Wim mentioned earlier, that > he has additional fees for phone bills and Markus has travel expenses. (I am > just taking them as an example for other possibilites) So what stops Wim or any > other person for paying travel expenses for a project or buying them new > hardware or pay phone bills. Nothing in particular stops them from doing this (ECF has had this happen...and I believe others as well), but the existing (lack of) support from the Foundation for such a model makes it quite difficult for many consumers to actually do. For example: from the consumer's perpsective...assuming they have no committers on the project...what does the project actually need? who to provide the support to? how to provide that support? where does the money/equipment/etc go? etc. From my perspective, the source of this bug is that there should be a way for consumers to support projects that they use and depend upon...other than simply to own them. This is where the primary value creation comes from, after all: committers and project teams delivering working, innovative, needs-responsive sw to real consumers. Finding ways to support that is sustainable. >Say he is donating more than the 35$ that an > Eclipse friendship costs, what is the benefit that giving it to the EF first ? I would say there is little-to-no benefit to the consumer of giving it to the EF first, as they allocate it in a way that is not at all well-targeted...i.e. mostly *not* to the projects that the consumer actually uses and depends upon.
Okay, EMF was dragged into this. Now I must comment! :-P There is nothing that stops any organization from directly supporting any project and of course the questions this raises are exactly the ones Scott poses, not to mention all the others raised: What does the project actually need? Who to provide the support to? How to provide that support? Where does the money/equipment/etc go? Do we actually want or need the foundation brokering any or all of these things? As a case in point, despite assertions to the contrary above, IBM provides effectively zero support for EMF these days; itemis and Cloudsmith are the primary sources of funding. How does that work? They expect me to know what the project needs and to meet those needs. They support me. They give me money. The money goes into my pocket. I suppose this isn't really a form of donation, but rather funded development. Note however the first comment about expecting *me* to know what's needed. It's not all that different from "give the project money and let the project decides how to spend it." I have wonder as well, how sustainable are donations as a source of funding? I.e., how much "thanks for all the good work" Paypal donations do we realistically expect? I ask, because I expect that most people want to get something substantial for their money. After all, getting tangible value for money spent is what typically drives a sustainable economy. People part with their hard-earned money out of the goodness of their hearts primary in the case of victims of misfortune. Perhaps we can tug at hearts by drawing attention to the misfortune that is the tragedy of the commons, but we've been doing that for years and it accomplishes little and I'd not want to appear as a beggar fighting over a tossed coin. When I think about all the value I already get out of foundation's commonly funded infrastructure, I feel that I'm not doing too badly. Okay the foundation doesn't fund conference travel, but all the foundation's funding organizations also need to limit the number of their own people who can travel to a conference. In the end, I know all too well from personal experience that the tragedy of the commons is a real problem that's hard to solve. I'm just not sure we've suggested anything here that will fundamentally change that problem. Even at IBM we had the same problem: hundreds of projects consuming EMF resulting in unbounded growth in service and support, not to mention demands for features; meanwhile the project's resources to sustain that overhead shrank to the vanishing point. There apparently was no money to optimize infrastructure used by those hundreds of project. The mere suggestion of those consumers paying a tax or portion of their profits was seen as completely ridiculous and totally unworkable. Of course no one suggested any other solution either.
(In reply to comment #43) @Christian Yes, you have correctly caught the tone of my comment. But please note that I have not made any threats. I am not making plans to stop being an add-in provider and take that money to directly fund said projects. > So further down the road I see a danger that we are breaking "the community" into pieces, if members only directly support certain projects. Right ? Yes, I agree. I think this can lead to no good. @Ed > I.e., how much "thanks for all the good work" Paypal donations do we realistically expect? I agree. We will probably not be able to rent office space for that money. I think we must see the "Donate Button" as a metaphor for the process and practice the Foundation needs to put in place for this. > I'm just not sure we've suggested anything here that will fundamentally change that problem That is why I suggested to make a project to figure out what is exactly the patients problem and find possible cures.
@Wim: Are you sure you intended to remove a number of people from the CC list as it seems ? What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|donald.smith@eclipse.org, | |Ed.Merks@gmail.com, | |ekke@ekkes-corner.org, | |grprakash@in.ibm.com, | |gunnar@wagenknecht.org, | |henrik.lindberg@cloudsmith. | |com, | |krzysztof_daniel@pl.ibm.com | |, mayworm@gmail.com, | |mik.kersten@tasktop.com, | |mike.milinkovich@eclipse.or | |g | CC|mn@mn.com.ua, | |remysuen@ca.ibm.com, | |rherrmann@eclipsesource.com | |, slewis@composent.com, | |wayne@eclipse.org, | |wim.jongman@remainsoftware. | |com |
Restored the list. Sorry for the spam.
Hi Ed, (In reply to comment #47) <stuff deleted> > I have wonder as well, how sustainable are donations as a source of funding? > I.e., how much "thanks for all the good work" Paypal donations do we > realistically expect? I ask, because I expect that most people want to get > something substantial for their money. After all, getting tangible value for > money spent is what typically drives a sustainable economy. People part with > their hard-earned money out of the goodness of their hearts primary in the case > of victims of misfortune. Perhaps we can tug at hearts by drawing attention to > the misfortune that is the tragedy of the commons, but we've been doing that > for years and it accomplishes little and I'd not want to appear as a beggar > fighting over a tossed coin. My thought about this: I wouldn't really expect Paypal donations to fully sustain a project either...but I think fully sustaining a project with one approach is too high a threshold to apply to new/additional ideas. As Ed makes clear, the tragedy of the commons effect is occurring with many EF projects...particularly acutely (and ironically) to those infrastructure projects that have relatively high adoption, diversity, and consumers...and to my mind that dictates/suggests doing new/other things organizationally. I think it's important *not* to assume that the problem will somehow be solved for the org with a single new approach, but rather only by identifying a number of relatively small improvements (my interpretation of the intention behind this bug). ...and WRT dealing with the 'tragedy' issues in general...it seems to me a little defeatist to assume that either nothing can be done about the commons issues...or that we somehow have to 'tug at hearts' to get consumers to cooperatively sustain project development. The research on tragedy of the commons problem does show that there are ways out of the basic problem...without appealing to 'pure altruism'. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation If you look at this important work a little, you quickly come to the realization that building community *trust* (over time) is necessary to establish cooperative behavior in iterative pd games. To me, the good news is that building trust is something that has/is/does happen between some EF projects and consumers (e.g. by releasing frequently with high quality, by delivering on time, by fixing bugs, by addressing consumer-specified needs, etc). There's also the trust building that occurs between projects/project teams...when they depend upon each or other...or otherwise actually cooperate with one another. <stuff deleted> > In the end, I know all too well from personal experience that the tragedy of > the commons is a real problem that's hard to solve. I'm just not sure we've > suggested anything here that will fundamentally change that problem. I don't disagree with you that it's a hard problem to solve Ed...but I think it's not the kind of really deep systemic problem that is fundamentally changed with a single idea (i.e. no silver bullet). Rather, IMHO it has to be chipped at continuously and repeatedly...from as many directions as possible. <stuff deleted> > by those hundreds of project. The mere suggestion of those consumers paying a > tax or portion of their profits was seen as completely ridiculous and totally > unworkable. Of course no one suggested any other solution either. Right...that's what I think is worth avoiding...i.e. just throwing up ones hands in frustration and giving up...and/or ignoring it...as either of these approaches leads to 'we're doomed no matter what we do'...'lose/lose'...and then, well...all can finish that story for themselves.
Hi, has there been any progress? Especially WRT to http://aniszczyk.org/2010/06/17/friends-of-eclipse-program-expansion/
We do not have a way of implementing this in a reasonable fashion. This is probably something better left to each individual project to manage. https://itsfoss.com/open-source-funding-platforms/
(In reply to Denis Roy from comment #53) > We do not have a way of implementing this in a reasonable fashion. This is > probably something better left to each individual project to manage. > > https://itsfoss.com/open-source-funding-platforms/ For the record: With due respect to you/Denis, I disagree that this is something better left to each individual project to manage. That's effectively been the approach for the entire life of the Eclipse Foundation (as well as other OS foundations) and as I think most project leads would agree...it's resulted in inequity of resources among projects. This inequity is further resulting in an unsustainable situation wrt shared concerns with OS in general (e.g. security...see heartbleed, log4j, simultaneous release, quality, etc). I submit that the model of corporate funding for pet projects...i.e. the ones that they control rather than the ones that people actually use...is at the root of the problem here, and that this is encouraged and enabled by EF policy (as well as other OS org policies) and governance (e.g. bylaws). It begs the question: What would OS developers that are independent/not affiliated with corps get from being part of such an organization other than being required to continuously do more with less? (which is the practical result of your 'better left to each project to manage' statement combined with the EF funding model)
> (In reply to Denis Roy from comment #53) > > We do not have a way of implementing this in a reasonable fashion. This is > > probably something better left to each individual project to manage. I am guessing you are cleaning up old bugs but I don't think you can so easily dismiss this. (In reply to Scott Lewis from comment #54) > > I submit that the model of corporate funding for pet projects...i.e. the > ones that they control rather than the ones that people actually use...is at log4j being a good example. This bug should get a higher priority and not a WONTFIX
FWIW, individual project donations as requested initially failed. The Friends of Eclipse program specifically took a downwards trend when we shifted the money from infra support to feature development. There is - however - a very sustainable model for financing projects. Working groups work very well for brining companies together and support projects of their interest. That's the model the Eclipse Foundation set up and it has proven itself to work. The IDE working group is a good example. It already hired independent developers working on IDE related topics. https://ide-wg.eclipse.org/
(In reply to Gunnar Wagenknecht from comment #56) > FWIW, individual project donations as requested initially failed. The > Friends of Eclipse program specifically took a downwards trend when we > shifted the money from infra support to feature development. I think that moving from infra support to feature development was a mistake for FOE...but I don't think that individual projects donations would necessarily fail (i.e. what if that shift hadn't happened?). > > There is - however - a very sustainable model for financing projects. > Working groups work very well for bringing companies together and support > projects of their interest. That's the model the Eclipse Foundation set up > and it has proven itself to work. > > The IDE working group is a good example. It already hired independent > developers working on IDE related topics. > > https://ide-wg.eclipse.org/ Thanks Gunnar. Although I appreciate the pointer to working-groups, I don't think it's proven itself to be sustainable. My evidence: the people primarily responsible for a number of projects depended upon by the ide (e.g. ECF, EMF/Ed, SR key people) are a) independently run; b) not supported by any working group afaik; c) not supported by working-group members (afaik). Further, the SR support (e.g.) is continuously getting thinner and thinner...and depends largely upon the goodwill of a few very generous individuals who are in effect being exploited because they made a commitment to the community very early on. I still think that the core problem is that member companies (small or large) are very sensitive to their own needs wrt OS, but not at all sensitive to the community needs more broadly (i.e. the developer community in the case of IDE). When those community needs (e.g. maintenance to prevent security problems, or resources for multi-project testing, or resources for SR releng) diverge or evolve away from the corporate members needs...there is no effective mechanism for 'educating' or 'disciplining' the corporate membership in community-defined directions.
(In reply to Scott Lewis from comment #57) > (In reply to Gunnar Wagenknecht from comment #56) > > FWIW, individual project donations as requested initially failed. The > > Friends of Eclipse program specifically took a downwards trend when we > > shifted the money from infra support to feature development. > > I think that moving from infra support to feature development was a mistake > for FOE...but I don't think that individual projects donations would > necessarily fail (i.e. what if that shift hadn't happened?). > > > > > There is - however - a very sustainable model for financing projects. > > Working groups work very well for bringing companies together and support > > projects of their interest. That's the model the Eclipse Foundation set up > > and it has proven itself to work. > > > > The IDE working group is a good example. It already hired independent > > developers working on IDE related topics. > > > > https://ide-wg.eclipse.org/ > > Thanks Gunnar. > > Although I appreciate the pointer to working-groups, I don't think it's > proven itself to be sustainable. My evidence: the people primarily > responsible for a number of projects depended upon by the ide (e.g. ECF, > EMF/Ed, SR key people) are a) independently run; b) not supported by any > working group afaik; c) not supported by working-group members (afaik). My understanding is that this is not true anymore, and IDE WG mentioned by Gunnar has actually used its members-provided funding to hire Ed Merks as SimRel Architect and release engineer. See the WG meeting notes at https://www.eclipse.org/lists/eclipse-ide-wg/msg00130.html.
(In reply to Pierre-Charles David from comment #58) > > My understanding is that this is not true anymore, and IDE WG mentioned by > Gunnar has actually used its members-provided funding to hire Ed Merks as > SimRel Architect and release engineer. See the WG meeting notes at > https://www.eclipse.org/lists/eclipse-ide-wg/msg00130.html. Thanks...I'm happy to see this. Appears to be very recent (Feb 2022)...better late than never I suppose. I do hope this results in better mechanisms for supporting projects...specifically those that are more infrastructure than the IDE...and (at least sometimes) not run/controlled/supported by corporate members (but sometimes depended upon by corporate members). wrt inequities between rich (corp) and poor (independent) projects...I tend to think about this scene from movie Moneyball: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWgyy_rlmag
