What is a good submission for funding (and do we have any?)
We've started a really good process for supporting a few projects with funds. If we had unlimited funds I love to see us support all the projects I can see so far on A Call for Projects to Fund via OSArch's Open Collective Site
There are many reasons to fund projects like these, not all of them perhaps so obvious.
- Some (not all) projects can move faster if they have some money
- Money motivates some people
- Being able to show which projects we are supporting can generate more funding and increase our funds in general
- Supporting the right projects brings in specific interest group
- Supporting well managed and reported projects raises our profile and the communities level of trust in our work
But it also comes with challenges, a good idea is not the same as a project with **a tight, atomized scope of work ** (to borrow wording from @theoryshaw in the original post)
I don't think we can support projects that cannot fulfill that criteria. I think we can only seriously consider projects with a few key things ironed out:
- Someone ready to manage the project (or at least be some kind of contact person)
- A tight, atomized scope of work
- A clearly defined time frame
- How much money is needed?
- How will progress and results be communicated?
The post @theoryshaw made on behalf of the steering committee also outlines some other just as important issues: A Call for Projects to Fund via OSArch's Open Collective Site
We had long discussions in the steering committee about how tightly we should control peoples submissions and their format. Looking at the submissions we have I see great projects, but not always with a clear scope ("until it's finished" is not a tight scope)
Some people might say what I'm talking about here conflicts a bit with the idea of bounties. Isn't a bounty just throwing a good idea out to the community and seeing how much support it gets? Well, yes. But a bounty is just another way to make a submission for funding. We/OSArch will probably want to fund more projects than we have money for - so it's fine to promote projects that need co-funding. But asking for co-funding means we are putting on name on a project and saying it's a good project and it's good value for money. For a good bounty I feel I can get behind there needs to be the same tight scope of work as for any other request for funding. So I don't don't think anything I am suggesting here conflicts with the idea of making bounties. I'm simply arguing for bounties for clearly defined projects.
What I would like this discussion I am trying to start here to be about is one specific step in the process: making a submission and what do we think a good submission looks like. There are probably examples out there - I would love to read some of them. What does a GSoC submission look like? Is that a good comparison? There are tons of funds that support OSS - what do their submission guidelines look like? So much research that could be done and so little time ...
So, what do people think? We sort of need to make some decisions on this since we've said submission close at the end of October ... I can only see two projects that get close to the information I think we need.
Do we need a new phase for clarification of a few promising projects that deserve a more detailed description?
PS. We have for months had long discussions about these topics in the steering committee. I hope that by posting it here we can have a bit broader discussion and we can all spend a bit more time thinking about our viewpoints. In our meetings it's a live discussion, so I know that I haven't always got my thoughts fully organized and explained. A forum is a better place for that sometimes.
