From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 278433858D28 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:09:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 278433858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: from reform (deer0x15.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9841301FEBE for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 23:09:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by reform (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DD1CF2E818B9; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 23:09:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 23:09:38 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: Overseers mailing list Subject: Re: Sourceware / GNU Toolchain at Cauldron Message-ID: References: <20220918162733.GB27812@gnu.wildebeest.org> <20220918213842.GC27812@gnu.wildebeest.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20220918213842.GC27812@gnu.wildebeest.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,BODY_8BITS,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: * List-Id: And here are some (my client connected and disconnected a lot, so I might have missed some) relevant #overseers irc logs with comments from people participating remotely: bkuhn: As part of answer to the question of β€œis SFC's capable of fundraising for its projects?” https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy_Form-990_fy-2020.pdf and https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy_independent-audit_fy-2020.pdf#page=11 karen: I didn't include it in my estimation of our grant funding but I am currently at the signing paperwork stage for a $450k grant from a major grantmaker bkuhn: I agree with codonell that you need a plan, but the *plan* (including costs) has to come before doing any fundraising, and for a FOSS initiative that plan should be publicly available. That's one of the things that SFC helps its projects do. serhei: so there was an entire presentation on infrastructure that got skipped over :) the infrastructure is being implemented as frugally as possible according to unix philosophy, but there are potential ideas to develop it further with either fixed or ongoing costs. fche: https://gnu.wildebeest.org/~mark/sourceware/presentation.html << the talk, as prepared bkuhn: I do want to note that dje mentioned Yocto as an example of what LF can provide. I note that Yocto's infrastructure is proprietary software, including even for the mailing lists. https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto https://lwn.net/Articles/700479/ serhei: it is going to take time to lower the temperature from the way this has been announced & incorporate those into a more credible proposal karen: I was just noting that SFC has close relationships with RH and have been talking to them about this (and other things) in a productive way bkuhn: We are too … we at SFC advise all our projects to write up a very clear proposal for their project plan, ideally on that is for two years out. We then encourage the projects to attach specific currency amounts and lists of hours of staff/contractor time needed for each thing during those two years. and then get a bottom line number, and THAT plus 15-20% (for safety, in case you under budgeted) is your fundraising target you show that plan to the public and your potential funders, and say: "Do you want to fund this?" The problem with seeking funding FIRST before the plan is clear is that it gives funders the opportunities to lobby you to do it differently than the community wants. We see it all the time, it happens to every organization that relies on contributions (as opposed to selling a product/service) to do its work. serhei: there's a term by Jane Jacobs 'catastrophic money' that encapsulates the risks of someone coming in and suddenly going "here is a pile of money" you end up building something completely different from what you would build when you have to be cautious with resources and you risk building something that is far less resilient bkuhn: SFC is absolutely willing to work with Overseers both on budget and making the plan a bit more ambitious. I do think it's unlikely 400k/year this soon can be used effectively, but I also think (and the Overseers will be annoyed I've said this) that they are not quite ambitious enough in the current plan. The clearly written plan allows you to stick to your plan when you're tempted by πŸ’°πŸ’°πŸ’° to just do it "slightly different" … because, slowly it becomes it's not so slightly, and then next thing you know, you're a year out and are like "Um, why are we doing what the funders want rather than what we want?" Note that the mailing list thread on overseers@sourceware is a good place to further this discussion. I'd really love to see someone post a summary of the session to that thread.