Applying to Sovereign Tech Fund #185

avobs commented 2024年06月26日 14:13:29 +02:00

Drawing upon previous sustainability discussions, I propose submitting an application to the Sovereign Tech Fund. It seems to be a good fit for Forgejo, and in particular for the a similar project outline already proposed to OTF. Unlike the OTF call, STF does not have deadlines for general funding requests. I am comfortable with taking the lead on the application, and would aim to submit before mid-August, but would be incredibly grateful for your reviews and input, in particular when it comes to the more technical questions. For now, I will start working on what I can and eventually follow up here, but of course, early comments and requests are always welcome.

Drawing upon [previous sustainability discussions](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/144), I propose submitting an [application](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/src/branch/main/2024-07-22%20STF/application_text.md) to the [Sovereign Tech Fund](https://www.sovereigntechfund.de/). It seems to be a good fit for Forgejo, and in particular for the a similar project outline already proposed to OTF. Unlike the OTF call, STF does not have deadlines for general funding requests. I am comfortable with taking the lead on the application, and would aim to submit before mid-August, but would be incredibly grateful for your reviews and input, in particular when it comes to the more technical questions. For now, I will start working on what I can and eventually follow up here, but of course, early comments and requests are always welcome.

avobs commented 2024年07月11日 11:57:41 +02:00

And finally, there‘s something like a draft to share.

Needless to say, I would be tremendously grateful for review, comments, suggestions, critical remarks, questions, etc.

Furthermore, there are a few things I am crossing my fingers that someone else can give input on, most importantly b. and d.:

a. "Please provide a brief overview of projects that depend on your technology. (300)"

This section still has a bit of space. I copied it from the OTF application, but if maybe there is something to add?

b. "Please describe a specific scenario for the use of your technology and how this meets the needs of your target groups. (300)"

This may be a no-brainer, but as a person with no technical background, I am lacking confidence here.

c. "What are possible alternatives to your project and how does your project compare to them? (optional) (300)"

Same.

d. And finally, for the deliverables/scope of work section – would someone be able to summarize in a phrase (for each aspect) why the following activities contribute to the improvement/maintenance of the technology, especially with regard to security and resilience?

• security audit
• data portability
• testing

If all goes well, I'd shoot for finalizing it by the end of the month.

Many thanks in advance <3

And finally, there‘s something like a [draft](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/src/branch/main/2024-07-22%20STF/application_text.md) to share. Needless to say, I would be tremendously grateful for review, comments, suggestions, critical remarks, questions, etc. Furthermore, there are a few things I am crossing my fingers that someone else can give input on, most importantly b. and d.: a. ["Please provide a brief overview of projects that depend on your technology. (300)"](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/src/branch/main/2024-07-22%20STF/application_text.md#please-provide-a-brief-overview-of-projects-that-depend-on-your-technology-300) _This section still has a bit of space. I copied it from the OTF application, but if maybe there is something to add?_ b. ["Please describe a specific scenario for the use of your technology and how this meets the needs of your target groups. (300)"](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/src/branch/main/2024-07-22%20STF/application_text.md#please-describe-a-specific-scenario-for-the-use-of-your-technology-and-how-this-meets-the-needs-of-your-target-groups-300) _This may be a no-brainer, but as a person with no technical background, I am lacking confidence here._ c. ["What are possible alternatives to your project and how does your project compare to them? (optional) (300)"](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/src/branch/main/2024-07-22%20STF/application_text.md#what-are-possible-alternatives-to-your-project-and-how-does-your-project-compare-to-them-optional-300) _Same._ d. And finally, for the [deliverables/scope of work section](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/src/branch/main/2024-07-22%20STF/application_text.md#what-do-you-plan-to-implement-with-the-support-from-stf-900-please-describe-your-objectives-and-the-corresponding-activities-state-clearly-how-they-contribute-to-the-improvement-or-maintenance-of-the-technology-especially-with-regard-to-security-and-resilience) – would someone be able to summarize in a phrase (for each aspect) why the following activities contribute to the improvement/maintenance of the technology, especially with regard to security and resilience? * security audit * data portability * testing If all goes well, I'd shoot for finalizing it by the end of the month. Many thanks in advance <3

mahlzahn commented 2024年07月15日 11:41:11 +02:00

b. "Please describe a specific scenario for the use of your technology and how this meets the needs of your target groups. (300)"

Possibly, keyoxide (as currently in the draft) is a good example for usage, but what I find missing here is statements about why forgejo is superior to other services (maybe some statements about ethics, sovereignty, etc.?).

Searching a bit, I found that one of the most popular repositories on codeberg.org, Gadgetbridge, might be an even better match for this section. They moved from github.com to codeberg.org, and one of the reasons was certainly the sudden DMCA takedown in 2017. A project on git software that can be self-hosted cannot be taken down by a US company.

> b. ["Please describe a specific scenario for the use of your technology and how this meets the needs of your target groups. (300)"](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sovereign_tech/src/branch/main/application_text.md#please-describe-a-specific-scenario-for-the-use-of-your-technology-and-how-this-meets-the-needs-of-your-target-groups-300) Possibly, keyoxide (as currently in the draft) is a good example for usage, but what I find missing here is statements about why forgejo is superior to other services (maybe some statements about ethics, sovereignty, etc.?). Searching a bit, I found that one of the most popular repositories on codeberg.org, [Gadgetbridge](https://codeberg.org/Freeyourgadget/Gadgetbridge), might be an even better match for this section. They moved from github.com to codeberg.org, and one of the reasons was certainly the sudden [DMCA takedown in 2017]( https://blog.freeyourgadget.org/our-dmca-takedown-a-post-mortem.html). A project on git software that can be self-hosted cannot be taken down by a US company.

avobs commented 2024年07月18日 12:55:26 +02:00

Possibly, keyoxide (as currently in the draft) is a good example for usage, but what I find missing here is statements about why forgejo is superior to other services (maybe some statements about ethics, sovereignty, etc.?).

I have taken a a stab at the other open question referring to how the project compares to similar ones, and hope it answers to that aspect.

By all means though, review here would be particularly welcome, because I am venturing further from my turf.

> Possibly, keyoxide (as currently in the draft) is a good example for usage, but what I find missing here is statements about why forgejo is superior to other services (maybe some statements about ethics, sovereignty, etc.?). I have taken a a stab at [the other open question referring to how the project compares to similar ones](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sovereign_tech/src/branch/main/application_text.md#what-are-possible-alternatives-to-your-project-and-how-does-your-project-compare-to-them-optional-300), and hope it answers to that aspect. By all means though, review here would be particularly welcome, because I am venturing further from my turf.

avobs commented 2024年07月18日 16:11:30 +02:00

I propose to set a deadline for submission on August 1, which is two weeks from now.

I propose to set a deadline for submission on August 1, which is two weeks from now.

avobs commented 2024年07月21日 12:34:27 +02:00

@algernon @fnetX @earl-warren @0ko @oliverpool @viceice @caesar @jerger @patdyn - I took the liberty of including you explicitly in the application, considering that you agreed to be named in the (very similar) OTF application. Apologies in advance should this not be in your interest. Unfortunately, there's not enough space to list specific areas of activities, but it might be good to include some actual profiles in an otherwise rather anonymous application. If you agree to be mentioned in this fashion, please 👍

@algernon @fnetX @earl-warren @0ko @oliverpool @viceice @caesar @jerger @patdyn - I took the liberty of including you explicitly [in the application](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/src/branch/main/2024-07-22%20STF/application_text.md#how-was-the-work-on-the-project-made-possible-so-far-structurally-financially-including-volunteer-work-if-applicable-list-others-sources-of-funding-that-you-applied-for-and-or-received-300), considering that you agreed to be named in the (very similar) OTF application. Apologies in advance should this not be in your interest. Unfortunately, there's not enough space to list specific areas of activities, but it might be good to include some actual profiles in an otherwise rather anonymous application. If you agree to be mentioned in this fashion, please 👍

0ko commented 2024年07月21日 13:10:30 +02:00

Sorry, I don't know who @patdyn is and they're not on the TEAMS list mentioned as a source for the list of contributors.
I would suggest adding:

• @Gusted
• @thefox (been related to Forgejo Runner for a while, now also started contributing to the main repo)

Sorry, I don't know who @patdyn is and they're not on the TEAMS list mentioned as a source for the list of contributors. I would suggest adding: * @Gusted * @thefox (been related to Forgejo Runner for a while, now also started contributing to the main repo)

patdyn commented 2024年07月21日 13:53:10 +02:00

Sorry, I don't know who @patdyn is and they're not on the TEAMS list mentioned as a source for the list of contributors.
I would suggest adding:

• @Gusted
• @thefox (been related to Forgejo Runner for a while, now also started contributing to the main repo)

Hi 👋 , @jerger, @clemensgeibel and me work on federation. Lots of pushes and some merged pull requests by now.
Maybe people forgot to add me to this list :)

> Sorry, I don't know who @patdyn is and they're not on the TEAMS list mentioned as a source for the list of contributors. > I would suggest adding: > * @Gusted > * @thefox (been related to Forgejo Runner for a while, now also started contributing to the main repo) Hi 👋 , @jerger, @clemensgeibel and me work on federation. Lots of pushes and some merged pull requests by now. Maybe people forgot to add me to this list :)

avobs commented 2024年07月21日 14:41:48 +02:00

Sorry, I don't know who @patdyn is and they're not on the TEAMS list mentioned as a source for the list of contributors.
I would suggest adding:

• @Gusted
• @thefox (been related to Forgejo Runner for a while, now also started contributing to the main repo)

done. @Gusted @thefox please let me know if you are ok with being listed

> Sorry, I don't know who @patdyn is and they're not on the TEAMS list mentioned as a source for the list of contributors. > I would suggest adding: > * @Gusted > * @thefox (been related to Forgejo Runner for a while, now also started contributing to the main repo) done. @Gusted @thefox please let me know if you are ok with being listed

earl-warren commented 2024年07月21日 18:10:22 +02:00

@avobs after a quick read, I see the parts that matters most to me (balance between paid staff and volunteer + decisions ultimately under the control of the Forgejo community) are the same as the previous application. I'm fine being included.

@avobs after a quick read, I see the parts that matters most to me (balance between paid staff and volunteer + decisions ultimately under the control of the Forgejo community) are the same as the previous application. I'm fine being included.

avobs commented 2024年07月24日 10:59:33 +02:00

Requesting advice:

The Sovereign Tech Fund requires applicants to confirm the following:

"I acknowledge: I am legally able to sign contracts for this project or represent an organization that can."

The application would be sent in the name of "Forgejo Authors", but as far as I understand, there is no legal body representing Forgejo Authors, or the project as a whole. The application does foresee the establishment of such an entity entirely in the hands of the community. That entity would however only be established in the future case of successfully applying for the grant.

Does anyone have an opinion on this problem? There is no space for explanations, it's simply a "tick the box for yes" situation.

This problem was previously posted here by mistake: #194

Requesting advice: The Sovereign Tech Fund requires applicants to confirm the following: "I acknowledge: I am legally able to sign contracts for this project or represent an organization that can." The application would be sent in the name of "Forgejo Authors", but as far as I understand, there is no legal body representing Forgejo Authors, or the project as a whole. The application does foresee the establishment of such an entity entirely in the hands of the community. That entity would however only be established in the future case of successfully applying for the grant. Does anyone have an opinion on this problem? There is no space for explanations, it's simply a "tick the box for yes" situation. This problem was previously posted here by mistake: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/194

earl-warren commented 2024年07月24日 11:04:56 +02:00

Since there is no organization yet, I think the answer is "yes".

It would be no if there was any kind of known obstacle. Such as you operating solo without Forgejo knowing. Or Forgejo being incorporated and you not being authorized to enter such a contract. Should the grant be accepted, work will have to be done to establish an organization and empower it to sign the contract in the name of the Forgejo community. But this is tomorrow's problem and although it is not 100% sure it will work out, at this point in time there is nothing indicating it will fail.

Not the easiest question to answer, I have to say.

Since there is no organization yet, I think the answer is "yes". It would be no if there was any kind of known obstacle. Such as you operating solo without Forgejo knowing. Or Forgejo being incorporated and you not being authorized to enter such a contract. Should the grant be accepted, work will have to be done to establish an organization and empower it to sign the contract in the name of the Forgejo community. But this is tomorrow's problem and although it is not 100% sure it will work out, at this point in time there is nothing indicating it will fail. Not the easiest question to answer, I have to say.

avobs commented 2024年07月30日 11:28:10 +02:00

Since there is no organization yet, I think the answer is "yes".

It would be no if there was any kind of known obstacle. Such as you operating solo without Forgejo knowing. Or Forgejo being incorporated and you not being authorized to enter such a contract. Should the grant be accepted, work will have to be done to establish an organization and empower it to sign the contract in the name of the Forgejo community. But this is tomorrow's problem and although it is not 100% sure it will work out, at this point in time there is nothing indicating it will fail.

Not the easiest question to answer, I have to say.

Thank you for this - sums up pretty much exactly the thoughts I had about this. Will be on the lookout in the coming days for objections, but in their absence would also just go with yes.

Generally speaking, seeing the delay of the latest release and the work, energy and attention that went into it, I propose to postpone our own internal deadline for submission of the STF application. To avoid the application to gather too much dust, I'd suggest the new date to be August 14, and then send it in for good. It resides here now. As always, comments and reviews are welcome.

> Since there is no organization yet, I think the answer is "yes". > > It would be no if there was any kind of known obstacle. Such as you operating solo without Forgejo knowing. Or Forgejo being incorporated and you not being authorized to enter such a contract. Should the grant be accepted, work will have to be done to establish an organization and empower it to sign the contract in the name of the Forgejo community. But this is tomorrow's problem and although it is not 100% sure it will work out, at this point in time there is nothing indicating it will fail. > > Not the easiest question to answer, I have to say. Thank you for this - sums up pretty much exactly the thoughts I had about this. Will be on the lookout in the coming days for objections, but in their absence would also just go with yes. Generally speaking, seeing the delay of the latest release and the work, energy and attention that went into it, I propose to postpone our own internal deadline for submission of the STF application. To avoid the application to gather too much dust, I'd suggest the new date to be August 14, and then send it in for good. It resides [here](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/src/branch/main/2024-07-22%20STF/application_text.md) now. As always, comments and reviews are welcome.

patdyn commented 2024年08月09日 11:07:21 +02:00

Generally speaking, seeing the delay of the latest release and the work, energy and attention that went into it, I propose to postpone our own internal deadline for submission of the STF application. To avoid the application to gather too much dust, I'd suggest the new date to be August 14, and then send it in for good. It resides here now. As always, comments and reviews are welcome.

As a quick FYI @avobs, I did a read and comment on the proposal. Here is the pull request on your fork of the sustainability repo: avobs/sustainability#1 for your convenience. :)

> Generally speaking, seeing the delay of the latest release and the work, energy and attention that went into it, I propose to postpone our own internal deadline for submission of the STF application. To avoid the application to gather too much dust, I'd suggest the new date to be August 14, and then send it in for good. It resides [here](https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/src/branch/main/2024-07-22%20STF/application_text.md) now. As always, comments and reviews are welcome. As a quick FYI @avobs, I did a read and comment on the proposal. Here is the pull request on your fork of the sustainability repo: https://codeberg.org/avobs/sustainability/pulls/1 for your convenience. :)

avobs commented 2024年08月15日 12:42:15 +02:00

Thank you all for your input - fyi, this application has now been submitted!

Thank you all for your input - fyi, this application has now been submitted!