Approach & parameter decisions

A list of decisions to be made about the approaches and parameter values that will be used during the funding process

Approaches

A number of decisions need to be made about which approaches should be used for the funding process.

Tools & services account ownership

Accounts are needed for many of the suggested tools and services that will be used to operate the funding process. GitHub, GitBook and Canny could be used over multiple funding rounds if the experiment was successful. These services could be more of a long term solution until a custom solution can be developed. Google Sheets and Google Forms are temporarily used within each funding round and can be more easily replaced in future rounds as the data that comes out of these tools can be stored on GitHub for future reference. Some tools and services ownership approaches include:

• Founding entity owned - The ecosystems founding entities are well suited to take ownership of any tool or service accounts that are needed to operate the funding process. The founding entities will then be able to easily transition to different funding operators and use different people for different parts of the funding process.

• Funding operator owned - If the founding entities aren't going to be the funding operator themselves the fund operator could also be responsible for creating the accounts for the required tools and services. This could be a simpler way to get started however at the end of the funding round these accounts might need to be transferred to the founding entity or another person or entity if the fund operator changes.

Contributor selection voters

Founding entities will decide who the voters will be for deciding which contributors are going to be selected. If there is any doubt around this decision, it will likely make sense for members of the founding entity to make the contributor selection decision initially as this can be a simpler and quicker approach to get started with. This could make sense whilst the funding process is still in its more experimental and learning focused phase. The voter approaches include:

• Founding entity voters - Members from the founding entity will vote on which contributors get selected.

• Custom selected voters - Members from the founding entity and/or the community are selected by the founding entity to participate in the voting decision. The founding entities could consider only inviting community members to become voters that have made certain contributions to the ecosystem or that have demonstrated a certain level of involvement in the ecosystem. Voter participation criteria could help with improving the probability that voters who participate have certain expertise or that they are highly involved in the ecosystem. A reason this approach might make sense is it could be simple and quick for the founding entities to select some voters from the community for this experiment.

• Community voters - All community members can participate in the voting decision.

Contribution board task creators

A priority suggestion board will enable the community to give their thoughts and suggestions about what open source initiatives could be the most impactful for contributors to prioritise. The next step for the funding process is deciding how those priorities get translated to tasks that contributors can work on. The two main options include:

• Founding entity created - The founding entity will decide which tasks the contributors should work on based on the community suggestions they believe are the most important. This approach is similar to idea grants processes where the founding entities are deciding which ideas are being selected and funded. This approach achieves a very similar outcome as idea grants processes where the founding entities will decide which people get funded and what they will be working on. This approach can make more sense if the contributors are less experienced in the ecosystem or when the founding entities want to be more cautious and be more involved in how the funding is being used for any initial experiment.

• Contributor created - Contributors are given the autonomy and responsibility to decide how they allocate their time. This approach is desirable over the long term however this responsibility can be more challenging for contributors who haven’t got a lot of experience in the ecosystem. Experienced contributors that have a better grasp of the tech stack and the different problems and opportunities in the ecosystem could be more suitable for this more flexible contribution approach.

Parameters

Decisions need to be made about what values should be used for each parameter in the funding process.

Funding process parameters

• Contributor funding term length - How many months will the contributors be funded for. An initial term length of 3-6 months could be suitable for an initial experiment. 6 months would be the default suggestion.

• Maximum funding available per contributor - How much funding are contributors able to request for their proposals? This value could be decided after the contributor proposals are submitted if the founding entities want to assess the initial interest from the community to participate. $10,000 per month would be the default suggestion for an initial experiment.

• Total funding available - How much total funding will be available for contributors to request from? This value does not need to be decided immediately. Contributor proposals could be submitted before this parameter is set so that the number and quality of proposals can be reviewed. $180,000 would be the default suggestion if at least 18 good proposals are submitted and the founding entities are comfortable with the selection of 3 contributors for a 6 month contribution period.

Timelines & dates

• Initial priority suggestion submission - A start and end date is needed for submitting initial priority suggestions. The founding entities will consider these before finalising the funding process parameters. Community suggestions can still be submitted after the end date. The end date just means the funding process would move to the next step.

• Contributor proposal submission start and end date - A start and end date for contributor candidates to submit their proposals. Contributors will also be requested to submit their proposal submission feedback in a questionnaire within a fixed time period after the submission end date.

• Contributor proposal feedback - A start and end date is needed for community members to give feedback to the submitted contributor proposals. After this end date has passed the contributor proposals will be approved and included in the voting decision.

• Voting period - A start and end date for when voters will be able to cast their contributor selection vote. Voters will also be requested to submit their voting feedback in a questionnaire within a fixed time period after the voting end date.

• Voting results aggregation and release - Setting a start and end date for aggregating and releasing the voting results to the public.

• Onboarding period and contribution - A start and end date for enabling contributors to get onboarded in the ecosystem and to prepare for their funded period of contribution.

• Contributor peer review questionnaire deadline - A start and end date for allowing contributors and community members to peer review other contributors and give their feedback.

• Completed funding process questionnaire deadline - A start and end date for both contributors and voters to submit their feedback in a questionnaire about the funding process.