Continuing the discussion from Strategies for funding the OFN Core OS project:
For the April to June 2017 quarter, after much extended discussion and spreadsheeting pain, we managed to successfully fill the two OFN Core Commons technical buckets and get this reflected in co-budget. Yay everyone, but especially @MyriamBoure @lin_d_hop @danielle @serenity and me See here:
This (as of this week) gave us a retrospective commons ‘technical’ funding bucket of $3,120 AUD. Revolutionary.
What We’ve Spent
At previous global hangouts I have raised the issue of deciding what this is spent on. The answer I have received is “Aus carries this so you decide” which is pretty much what we’ve gone with for this quarter. BUT:
- It will not continue to be correct to assume that all the work done on this is done in Aus and we will need to work out how to handle that
- Because there wasn’t actually agreed money in the buckets until very recently there has been a lack of clarity at this end about what should go where. I have spent a lot of time today wrestling with time trackers, spreadsheets and accounting packages and moving things around, mostly to
- move things that (mostly @oeoeaio) had as ‘not billed’ into these now billable buckets
- moving a couple of things that were support for funded projects out
- I want to make sure those decisions are transparent so that they can be questioned, preferably with view to improving going forward rather than make me change anything for this quarter, which will cause me very much pain
I would loosely define my working assumptions as:
“These buckets are for making the open source development project environment be awesome, improving the quality of support and feedback for existing and new developers, and hence accelerating fabulous code contributions from everywhere”. Some early priorities identified have included: getting more devs through to ‘expert reviewer’ to open up the Aus bottleneck, including developing guidelines / checklists, tools for code quality etc. We have also put @maikel’s time supporting Transifex issues etc into these buckets. I have attached the Toggl report here in case anyone will get pleasure in reading even more detail than I have provided
Toggl_projects_2017-04-01_to_2017-06-30 (1).pdf (18.3 KB)
So the grand totals are:
Code Review & Merge: Budgeted $2,080; Spent $505; unallocated $1,575
Tech Oversight: Budgeted $1,040; Spent $1,050; overspent $10
Total: unallocated $1,565
What We Do With ‘Unallocated’ - for THIS quarter
Options for what could happen with this ‘unallocated’ $$:
- We could allocate more of the still ‘unbilled’ items to be paid out of core commons, for example I made a somewhat random decision to include some work on CodeClimate but not that on RuboCop
- We could roll it over into the next quarter - so we have more to work with as it gets clearer what activities are clearly in. The July-Sept buckets are not fully funded yet so this is my preference
- We could agree to cover activities that have been allocated for payment through ‘support’ buckets, where the code/PRs in question are clearly in the interests, and agreed priorities, of the whole community . . we can look at doing this for this past quarter but it will require some more fiddling at this end to get everything accounted for again . . revisit below . .
Opinions please . . . this is going to be lazy consent . . if I don’t hear from people I will go with Option 2. If you want Option 3, please reply including your proposed reallocation
Proposed Future Spending
Once it was looking likely that there would be money in these buckets, there was an increasing number of suggestion / request / ideas for things that could be funded from them. I have been a pretty tight purse-master as it’s been really really hard to get money in there and the amount of things we could spend money on is infinite. It could disappear before we blink!
So in addition to the general guideline I used above for this quarter, I wanted to float a couple of ideas for a more open process for the next one. We could:
- Gather and prioritise suggestions / requests for items to be paid for through these buckets. These could include:
- Nominated activities that clearly fall in the ‘make better environment / community’ definition e.g. the day or so for @maikel to fully automate the translation stuff
- Support e.g. code review and merge for items that are clearly tech debt or overarching priorities, even if the work has been prioritised / developer is being paid from within someone’s budget e.g. the work that was done on Paypal charging twice. Could things like this be nominated and agreed to be ‘subsidised’ by the Commons? UK / @lin_d_hop and France / @MyriamBoure may have a view on this . .
- There may be some argument for some tech debt BUT it is so vast that these buckets are simply not equipped to go anywhere near it. I wonder if we could do something like:
- actually set up a Tech Debt bucket (separate from and probably post-Spree Upgrade)
- if/when there is money have the Dev Hangout/Mumble take responsibility for the tech debt pipe and prioritising spending and who does it
- IN THE MEANTIME if the Dev HO/Mumble group identifies urgent and priority issues that they want dealt with, they can propose to the community that money from these CC buckets be used. What do people think? @oeoeaio @maikel @RohanM @enricostn @sauloperez @Matt-Yorkley @softgust @stveep etc!! Feel free to fork this off to a focused ‘how do we start getting progress on tech debt’ discussion . .
OK, I think there’s enough to chew on there. Sorry for the mountain of information (and especially those who’ve had me on multiple channels today) but I finally think I can see the light, so thanks for bearing with me!!