Funding sources

edited January 6 in General

https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Funding_sources
I have now made a page dedicated to listing sources of funding. Not individual funding, but grants of different types. I had a long talk with @KasperMiller about this and the problem is not so much if there is funding out there - there is funding. But it takes dedicated work to apply for it and wade through the bureaucracy.

@KasperMiller can you add some sources and examples for the Horizons project (also check the dates for that project). Don't spend years on the page, just quick stuff with links.

@everyone - please add sources of funding you've heard about.

Tagged:
MoultCyrilbasweinJesusbill

Comments

  • I'm going to stick neck out and say we should start talking to https://opencollective.com/opensource about setting something up. As far as I can tell they can help us with a lot of the admin and transparency and structure while we grow and maybe eventually become strong enough that we can be fully independent. At the moment when I look at how many people are willing to spend time and energy on organization work I don't see any other realistic option.

    So please read about them and if you don't have some important objection then I think we should go further looking into how it works. I think we need at least three people who are committed to going into the details of this so we can move forward. I am happy to be one of those people but will not do it alone as this is both unsustainable and undemocratic. This little group could then make a presentation of the facts and call everyone serious about this group for an opinion.

    I have previously talked with Dion and others about using LiberaPay and they have a good solution but they themselves suggest looking at opencollective for larger projects that need to provide financial information and transparency. Also my own bank has given me problems transfering money to LiberaPay. So they are clearly part of the solution but are not enough alone.

  • Thanks @duncan for looking into this. I think this is a good option to explore. I can help.

    duncan
  • Go for it!

  • @Cyril commented in the thread Open Source Design collective but I will reply here.

    @Cyril said:
    I think implications of having a fiscal host in USA should be carefully studied.
    If it similar to having a company in based I would say «Hell no ! ». Because that would mean it would be subject to software export law. And so our friend from countries disliked by USA state would not be officially allowed. Remember that not long time ago many Iranians FOSS friend got kicked from Github because of this ******* law. A big protest repo was set up at this occasion.
    Similar for patent trolls does having a fiscal host in US imply an exposure to theses parasites?
    I understand considering message on chat why it was think of but we are not going to set up a fiscal host in each country to make all companies which donate eligible for fiscal deduction no ?
    Every country has it own legal advantage and drawback but regarding FOSS and privacy USA (and they are not the only one) have unfortunately a bunch of laws unfriendly to FOSS and privacy in software.
    I might be worry for nothing but I think it worths to check.

    @Cyril you are totally right that this any many other things could be on a list of issues to consider. But without people who have to to look into all these things we still need to do something. My thought is that Open Source Collective could be a good place to start. Please add your thought here and anything concrete to https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Funding_sources#Charity_or_Foundation to it doesn't get lost in this conversation which will be on for a long time. I'm just not sure we should wait until all our questions are answered when an apparently good solution is so easy. I've added some of your thoughts to that text.

    I have earlier argued against trying to hurry up. That was because I thought it would be a whole nightmare load of work. But with the way Open Collective and Open Source Collective are organized this problem is much smaller. As it stands we have no way to begin applying for and accepting funds for our work and on behalf of others. And as @Moult s recent comment in chat shows (his was offered 1000USD but only to a 501c US registered charity) we might benefit from having something set up soon.

    But again, I'm not planning to make any moves before we are a few more people willing to spend some time looking into this and managing it. Your comments @Cyril help by bringing some important issues to light. For now @theoryshaw has stepped forward. That makes us two. I suggest we need a few more people.

  • edited December 2020

    I've added OpenDreamKit as example of Horizon 2020 funding open source software tools under category Research Infrastructure, which I found through a LinkedIn post by @c4rlosdias regarding: https://github.com/K3D-tools/K3D-jupyter

    duncan
  • In the interests of transparency, we were recently approached by a charity fund who wanted to donate 1,000USD to the BlenderBIM Add-on. However, they had a specific requirement: the receiving organisation had to be a 501(c), and they had to transfer it before the end of 2020. For these two reasons, Thomas and I quickly set up an OpenCollective account (which is 501(c), and offers automatic approval based on Github stars). We successfully received the 1,000USD (with a 10% fee): https://opencollective.com/opensourcebim

    This was literally set up to meet this one particular scenario, so nothing is set it stone just yet.

    theoryshawJesusbillduncanpaulleebitacovir
  • @Moult said:
    In the interests of transparency, we were recently approached by a charity fund who wanted to donate 1,000USD to the BlenderBIM Add-on.

    Well, one thing is clear. There won't be much problems to get some money in the future. People are so interested in an open source solution in AEC, that they don't have problem on bringing money on the table for early projects, even with informal organization. :)

  • Hello all,

    For Horizon 2021, clear research and/or innovation targets are needed, and in many cases 3 different entities in three different countries to collaborate. There are of course other research funding possibilities, but the field is so vast, it would need a lot of focus and coordination to have a successful bid in.

  • edited January 6

    @ar_lav sure, it's not easy. But then it doesn't have to be us who get the money. We can just help groups find each other who have the same goals as us. For example, buildingSMART Denmark, Danish Facility Management Association & Danish Association of Housing Cooperatives. Great project possibilities for strengthening OpenBIM in FM... (that's not a totally off the top of my head suggestion)

    @bitacovir I just spoke to someone that some years ago had their installer open paypal donation dialogue. They had to shut it down because they couldn't use all the money EUR30.000 ... they're still using that money many years later.

  • edited January 8

    @duncan , regarding funding sources in Norway, believe Statsbygg is a good prospect. Statsbygg is the Norwegian government’s building commissioner, property manager and developer. They also advise the government in construction and property affairs.

    Another probable source, Forsvarsbygg NDEA. The Norwegian Defence Estates Agency is a government administrative agency under the Ministry of Defence. They develop, build, operate and divest real estate for the defence sector.

    Yet another, OBOS.
    Norway’s largest housing developer. OBOS’ vision is to build the society of the future and, in doing so, fulfil housing dreams.

  • @CadGiru i guess they fall under the banner of 'partnering'. I've spoken to @condur about his as he has contacts inside Statsbygg. I think definitely there are possibilities there for partnering. What kind of collaboration do you think there could be?

  • A thought that came to me during today's meetup, but not fast enough for me to mention it, is a way to use LibrePay by having developers for different Floss projects signed up on an OSArch team on LibrePay so any payment made to that team account is divided up equally between all members. OSArch could have a process for voting projects / developers to join the team. So if the team account gets $300 each month and there are 10 members, each member will get $30 each month. Of course there will be conditions for being nominated / voted to join the OSArch Dev team (project must be FLOSS, must be relevant to OSArch objectives, must be actively under development - publicly accessible repo with minimum of 6 months of active and current updates, etc). The nomination / voting process just becomes one of the ways of participating in OSArch, just like the voting process we've had for logos, and also a way of appreciating developers who are contributing useful tools to the ecosystem. Long term, it can help drive OSArch tools for interoperability between FlOSS BIM tools.

  • I like that idea.
    I would, however, avoid disturbing equally among the team. As is typical in an OS project, contributions usually following some type of long tail distribution. That is, only a few people contribute the most, whereby a large swath of people submit less.
    In this light, I would suggest disturbing funds based on merit, whereby merit is determined by community vote.
    I would even say, community vote is weighted. That is, some members have a higher voting potency than others.
    Voting potency could be determined quarterly or bi-yearly, whereby we have elections in which all the electorate's vote is weighted equally.
    2 cents.

  • On the long tail issue, my thinking is that we have one key developer for each of the different projects that interest OSArch voted to the team. The team can be re-composed every 12 months, so projects that stopped being actively developed in the previous cycle of 12 months can get offloaded during the next voting round for example.

    "Team" in this instance by the way, refers to the LiberaPay 's Teams feature which does have some limitations.

    On voting, I do think each vote should have the same weight, but maybe with pre qualification requirements for a member to be able to vote to prevent a swarm of new memberships just to get a project voted. Either that, or there is a nomination process that is not through voting, so each project / developer put forward for voting has already gone through pre-qualification and is already fit enough for OSArch support anyway.

    Thinking about it again however, the idea of voting for projects for OSArch to support for each year does not have to be tied to LiberaPay, so I guess my little brain wave yesterday does not bring much that's new to the table!

  • As much as possible shall we keep discussions on structure and organization in the other thread https://community.osarch.org/discussion/182/organizational-structure-and-governance-of-osarch ... and focus this thread on funding sources

Sign In or Register to comment.