associating volunteer time with a monetary value #51

Ghost commented 2022年11月26日 23:06:02 +01:00

Sustaining Forgejo requires funding so that paid staff can participate. And it also needs to empower volunteers and ensure they can contribute on an equal footing. The ideal situation would be that there is a good balance between them.

While it is difficult to make a list of what should be done to achieve such a balance, there is one problem that is easy to overcome. When the volunteer work is not associated with a monetary value, paid staff are taken care of while volunteers are considered less important.

In France there is a mechanism by which a non-profit is allowed to include volunteer work in their annual report to the IRS. For instance 1,000 hours of volunteer work at 60€ per hour have the same value as if someone was employed for a total of 60,000€ during the year. It is a symbolic mechanism with no financial gain but it is an important one because it puts volunteers and paid staff on an equal footing.

I propose that volunteer work is accounted for at the same hourly rate that is used for grant applications (60€/h). It is of course not mandatory for a volunteer to record the hours they spend on a given Forgejo task. But if they do, this would be accounted for in the funding reports.

[Sustaining Forgejo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/4) requires funding so that paid staff can participate. And it also needs to empower volunteers and ensure they can contribute on an equal footing. The ideal situation would be that there is a good balance between them. While it is difficult to make a list of what should be done to achieve such a balance, there is one problem that is easy to overcome. When the volunteer work is not associated with a monetary value, paid staff are taken care of while [volunteers are considered less important](https://blog.dachary.org/2020/12/24/volunteer-work-is-not-worth-a-dime/). In France there is a mechanism by which a non-profit is [allowed to include volunteer work](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valorisation_comptable_du_b%C3%A9n%C3%A9volat_en_France) in their annual report to the IRS. For instance 1,000 hours of volunteer work at 60€ per hour have the same value as if someone was employed for a total of 60,000€ during the year. It is a symbolic mechanism with no financial gain but it is an important one because it puts volunteers and paid staff on an equal footing. I propose that volunteer work is accounted for at the same hourly rate that is used for grant applications (60€/h). It is of course not mandatory for a volunteer to record the hours they spend on a given Forgejo task. But if they do, this would be accounted for in the [funding reports](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/CONTRIBUTING/FUNDING.md).

Ghost commented 2022年11月28日 13:10:58 +01:00

@caesar @circlebuilder as a followup to some comments in the chat room today, I would like to open a debate here on the value associated to work and the perception of efficiency.

I've done volunteer work during years, full time. I've also been employed as a developer and making a six figures salary per year. I've also been the sole owner of a company and had a similar income after factoring in benefits that position grants in addition to the salary. I'm now employed by a cooperative where everyone is paid the same (20 employees, in existence for over 20 years) and our salary is 5,600€ per month for a full time job (when tax are deducted this is ~2,700€ per month in my pocket).

There were years when I felt very efficient and looked back at what I accomplished with pride. A subjective feeling, not shared by everyone else but important to me nevertheless. I've also watched other people work and do things I would not have thought possible. My fascination for people like Sage Weil or Richard Stallman probably comes from my education as my parents always spoke hihgly of geniuses: a path to be explored during decades with a shrink I'm sure. During the years when I had the privilege to work with them on a daily basis, what kept me going was their kindness. They never made me feel small despite my shortcomings. I could not compete with their efficiency and they never made me feel that it was a competition.

There were years when I felt very inefficient and I'd rather forget those. As a colleague my output left much to be desired and I'm grateful for their patience. Sometime they had to cover for me, doing additional work because I failed. Sometime I was just drawn to some other project and left them hanging. This happens to most people I suppose and I also assume were are constantly in between those extremes: not very proud of how efficient we are and not too ashamed of how lazy we are.

During all these years and all these variations in income and efficiency, I came to realize that it is not for me to decide what price to put on someone else work. It is whatever they think fair and I accept that, always. In the same way I accept that someone doing volunteer work spends however time they decide to accomplish a task. If, as a volunteer, I spend ten days fixing a bug (yes, sometime that's how long it takes me, even on a rather uncomplicated bug), it would not give me satisfaction if someone suggested that I should have done the same thing in half the time. And if, as an employee, I spend ten days (2,800€ at my current rate) doing the same, I would similarly not be happy if the customer says it is too expensive. It is what it is.

Of course none of us has unlimited amounts of money and none of us is able to fit 100 hours of volunteer work with a 24h day. So we have to do with what we have and find something that fits. If my volunteer work takes ten days and blocks someone that really needs the fix within two days, maybe someone else should do the work more efficiently or a workaround must be found. If 2,800€ is above the customer budget, the problem is the same and the solutions are similar.

My very personal perception of efficiency and the value of work is unlikely to be shared by everyone. But as Forgejo begins everyone needs to figure out how to create an inclusive environment where volunteers and paid staff can work together in harmony. It is not easy and very few Free Software project (not a single one I know) have done that before. Because most of them are not transparent about how they negotiate contracts, how their funding is really implemented or how salaries are negotiated and settled, this conversation involving both volunteer and paid work never happens. We enter uncharted territory and there will be friction. But I'm confident that, eventually, we will figure something out that works well for everyone.

@caesar @circlebuilder as a followup to some comments in the chat room today, I would like to open a debate here on the value associated to work and the perception of efficiency. I've done volunteer work during years, full time. I've also been employed as a developer and making a six figures salary per year. I've also been the sole owner of a company and had a similar income after factoring in benefits that position grants in addition to the salary. I'm now employed by a cooperative where everyone is paid the same (20 employees, in existence for over 20 years) and our salary is 5,600€ per month for a full time job (when tax are deducted this is ~2,700€ per month in my pocket). There were years when I felt very efficient and looked back at what I accomplished with pride. A subjective feeling, not shared by everyone else but important to me nevertheless. I've also watched other people work and do things I would not have thought possible. My fascination for people like Sage Weil or Richard Stallman probably comes from my education as my parents always spoke hihgly of geniuses: a path to be explored during decades with a shrink I'm sure. During the years when I had the privilege to work with them on a daily basis, what kept me going was their kindness. They never made me feel small despite my shortcomings. I could not compete with their efficiency and they never made me feel that it was a competition. There were years when I felt very inefficient and I'd rather forget those. As a colleague my output left much to be desired and I'm grateful for their patience. Sometime they had to cover for me, doing additional work because I failed. Sometime I was just drawn to some other project and left them hanging. This happens to most people I suppose and I also assume were are constantly in between those extremes: not very proud of how efficient we are and not too ashamed of how lazy we are. During all these years and all these variations in income and efficiency, I came to realize that it is not for me to decide what price to put on someone else work. It is whatever they think fair and I accept that, always. In the same way I accept that someone doing volunteer work spends however time they decide to accomplish a task. If, as a volunteer, I spend ten days fixing a bug (yes, sometime that's how long it takes me, even on a rather uncomplicated bug), it would not give me satisfaction if someone suggested that I should have done the same thing in half the time. And if, as an employee, I spend ten days (2,800€ at my current rate) doing the same, I would similarly not be happy if the customer says it is too expensive. It is what it is. Of course none of us has unlimited amounts of money and none of us is able to fit 100 hours of volunteer work with a 24h day. So we have to do with what we have and find something that fits. If my volunteer work takes ten days and blocks someone that really needs the fix within two days, maybe someone else should do the work more efficiently or a workaround must be found. If 2,800€ is above the customer budget, the problem is the same and the solutions are similar. My very personal perception of efficiency and the value of work is unlikely to be shared by everyone. But as Forgejo begins everyone needs to figure out how to create an inclusive environment where volunteers and paid staff can work together in harmony. It is not easy and very few Free Software project (not a single one I know) have done that before. Because most of them are not transparent about how they negotiate contracts, how their funding is really implemented or how salaries are negotiated and settled, this conversation involving both volunteer and paid work never happens. We enter uncharted territory and there will be friction. But I'm confident that, eventually, we will figure something out that works well for everyone.

circlebuilder commented 2022年11月28日 21:15:37 +01:00

Thank you for your explanation on the background to how you work. Much appreciated.

It is a symbolic mechanism with no financial gain but it is an important one because it puts volunteers and paid staff on an equal footing.

As for the original issue I do not fully understand. Do you mean to say that volunteers could get financial compensation if they track their hours properly? Or that they might track the value they add symbolically?

For me personally I do not know how I'll deal with finances yet. I have started a one-person SMB ('Eenmanszaak' in Dutch) and earned my income this year from DAPSI program.

Other than that I might open some donation accounts, with the idea "If you appreciate my volunteering there's ability to show it in a donation". But that's just on-the-side. In the long run I want to be part of a sustainable (post-growth) business operation.

In terms of interests.. they involve cooperation in ecosystems, not one-man shows, and my involvement everywhere is part of larger dreams. I am 'weaving' to help people find each other, and at the same time this aligns to my long-term goals.

Thank you for your explanation on the background to how you work. Much appreciated. > It is a symbolic mechanism with no financial gain but it is an important one because it puts volunteers and paid staff on an equal footing. As for the original issue I do not fully understand. Do you mean to say that volunteers could get financial compensation if they track their hours properly? Or that they might track the value they add symbolically? For me personally I do not know how I'll deal with finances yet. I have started a one-person SMB ('Eenmanszaak' in Dutch) and earned my income this year from DAPSI program. Other than that I might open some donation accounts, with the idea "If you appreciate my volunteering there's ability to show it in a donation". But that's just on-the-side. In the long run I want to be part of a sustainable (post-growth) business operation. In terms of interests.. they involve cooperation in ecosystems, not one-man shows, and my involvement everywhere is part of larger dreams. I am 'weaving' to help people find each other, and at the same time this aligns to my long-term goals.

oliverpool commented 2022年11月28日 23:16:26 +01:00

@circlebuilder I think the idea is to include this number of "voluntary work" into the annual report.

Instead of being only:

some-contributor received 5000 € in funding to work on forgejo

It would be:

some-contributor received 5000 € in funding to work on forgejo
some-other-contributor contributed the equivalent of 3000 € of work for forgejo

This way both paid and non-paid contributors are on an equal footing.

---

Instead of counting in ,ドル one could also count in hours (and add a conversion convention somewhere)

some-contributor worked 83h on forgejo (paid by grant)
some-other-contributor worked 50h on forgejo (voluntary)

@circlebuilder I think the idea is to include this number of "voluntary work" into the annual report. Instead of being only: > some-contributor received 5000 € in funding to work on forgejo It would be: > some-contributor received 5000 € in funding to work on forgejo > some-other-contributor contributed the equivalent of 3000 € of work for forgejo This way both paid and non-paid contributors are on an equal footing. --- Instead of counting in ,ドル one could also count in hours (and add a conversion convention somewhere) > some-contributor worked 83h on forgejo (paid by grant) > some-other-contributor worked 50h on forgejo (voluntary)

Ghost commented 2022年11月28日 23:54:56 +01:00

Thank you for your explanation on the background to how you work. Much appreciated.

It is a symbolic mechanism with no financial gain but it is an important one because it puts volunteers and paid staff on an equal footing.

As for the original issue I do not fully understand. Do you mean to say that volunteers could get financial compensation if they track their hours properly? Or that they might track the value they add symbolically?

I mean that volunteer could track the value of their work symbolically. If there were compensated financially the would no longer be volunteers.

> Thank you for your explanation on the background to how you work. Much appreciated. > > > It is a symbolic mechanism with no financial gain but it is an important one because it puts volunteers and paid staff on an equal footing. > > As for the original issue I do not fully understand. Do you mean to say that volunteers could get financial compensation if they track their hours properly? Or that they might track the value they add symbolically? I mean that volunteer could track the value of their work symbolically. If there were compensated financially the would no longer be volunteers.

earl-warren commented 2022年11月29日 03:28:53 +01:00

I will start logging my time as a volunteer using the Forgejo time tracking. Where should I report it?

I will start logging my time as a volunteer using the Forgejo time tracking. Where should I report it?

caesar commented 2022年11月29日 10:09:05 +01:00

This is a fascinating discussion, thanks for starting it @dachary.

Personally I am in a different position to many as, although coding has been a lifelong hobby of mine (plus occasional freelance work), it's never been my day job. So time on FLOSS projects has always been volunteering for me, and I have never cared very much about hours or what my work is worth financially.

(That said, I am very interested in potentially in the future considering being part of a future funding application to spend more time on FLOSS rather than just being able to contribute in my limited free time.)

As for the accounting, I don't personally feel assigning an "equivalent value" to voluteer work would be productive – speaking personally, it might even be counterproductive, as people might feel "my work was worth €X.XX but I wasn't paid"...)
Rather, I think it might be better to count hours (at the contributor's discretion) and say something like:

"XX hours of time were donated to the project by volunteer contributors"

But maybe others feel differently! 😄

---

edit: @oliverpool 's suggetsion is also good:

some-contributor worked 83h on forgejo (paid by grant)
some-other-contributor worked 50h on forgejo (voluntary)

This is a fascinating discussion, thanks for starting it @dachary. Personally I am in a different position to many as, although coding has been a lifelong hobby of mine (plus occasional freelance work), it's never been my day job. So time on FLOSS projects has always been volunteering for me, and I have never cared very much about hours or what my work is worth financially. (That said, I am very interested in potentially in the future considering being part of a future funding application to spend more time on FLOSS rather than just being able to contribute in my limited free time.) As for the accounting, I don't personally feel assigning an "equivalent value" to voluteer work would be productive – speaking personally, it might even be counterproductive, as people might feel *"my work was worth €X.XX but I wasn't paid"*...) Rather, I think it might be better to count hours (at the contributor's discretion) and say something like: > "XX hours of time were donated to the project by volunteer contributors" But maybe others feel differently! 😄 --- edit: @oliverpool 's suggetsion is also good: > some-contributor worked 83h on forgejo (paid by grant) > some-other-contributor worked 50h on forgejo (voluntary)

caesar commented 2022年11月29日 11:24:11 +01:00

By the way, tangentially related to this discussion: I like how Inkscape talks about "Contributing your time", and then talks about all the ways people can contribute – coding being just one of many.

By the way, tangentially related to this discussion: I like how [Inkscape talks about "Contributing your time"](https://inkscape.org/splash/contribute/), and then talks about all the ways people can contribute – coding being just one of many.

circlebuilder commented 2022年11月29日 13:37:18 +01:00

I agree with @caesar and don't see much value in tracking my time as volunteer. Is that needed to be on equal footing? I am hopping in and out, spending 5 mins. here, an hour there. Recording it would only be burdensome.

I wonder if this "time is money" concept is a good idea. It formalizes contributing too much. My total amount of time spent likely amounts to quite a bit, but since I'm not recording there's a "Thank you" list of those who do record where I'm not in. That alone might lead to people feeling left out, or peer-pressured in "Sigh, okay I'll track time".

In this case I would keep things simple:

• You contribute for the joy of doing so. You are listed as contributor (maybe with the type of contributions mentioned, idk) to honour you.

  • I've seen some GH widget + bot that automatically (or with a review step, idk) adds folks to a growing contributor table with their avatar + name + type of contribution shown. Forgot which project I saw that was using this.

• You get paid on the project, means you took a commitment and have resulting obligations that flow from it. That's worth money.

If there's more income for the project, and tasks that aren't picked up there might experiments with bounties and such, where people can put their name to. They then also take the obligation to work on that.

I agree with @caesar and don't see much value in tracking my time as volunteer. Is that needed to be on equal footing? I am hopping in and out, spending 5 mins. here, an hour there. Recording it would only be burdensome. I wonder if this "time is money" concept is a good idea. It formalizes contributing too much. My total amount of time spent likely amounts to quite a bit, but since I'm not recording there's a "Thank you" list of those who do record where I'm not in. That alone might lead to people feeling left out, or peer-pressured in "Sigh, okay I'll track time". In this case I would keep things simple: - You contribute for the joy of doing so. You are listed as contributor (maybe with the type of contributions mentioned, idk) to honour you. - I've seen some GH widget + bot that automatically (or with a review step, idk) adds folks to a growing contributor table with their avatar + name + type of contribution shown. Forgot which project I saw that was using this. - You get paid on the project, means you took a commitment and have resulting obligations that flow from it. That's worth money. If there's more income for the project, and tasks that aren't picked up there might experiments with bounties and such, where people can put their name to. They then also take the obligation to work on that.

earl-warren commented 2022年11月29日 16:56:42 +01:00

Is there an objection that the volunteer time I spend working on Forgejo is tracked at a 60 euros per hour rate? I'm not advocating that everyone does the same but I would appreciate if I can.

Is there an objection that the volunteer time I spend working on Forgejo is tracked at a 60 euros per hour rate? I'm not advocating that everyone does the same but I would appreciate if I can.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2022年12月01日 21:44:08 +01:00

As much as I would like to see that volunteer work is compensated, I'm not sure, whether monetary is the best approach. Some just be fine with stickers, a shirt, an autogram, some fame, being mentioned on stage etc.

I understand that it could be perceived as exploitation to take volunteer work for free. There is more than one motivation though.

Keep in mind that when paying volunteers from a grant, the number of hour for beneficiary of that grant will shrink accodingly. I'm not sure what would happen if the targets aren't met but the money was all spent.

As much as I would like to see that volunteer work is compensated, I'm not sure, whether monetary is the best approach. Some just be fine with stickers, a shirt, an autogram, some fame, being mentioned on stage etc. I understand that it could be perceived as exploitation to take volunteer work for free. There is more than one motivation though. Keep in mind that when paying volunteers from a grant, the number of hour for beneficiary of that grant will shrink accodingly. I'm not sure what would happen if the targets aren't met but the money was all spent.

earl-warren commented 2022年12月02日 01:01:07 +01:00

I do not want my volunteer work to be compensated. I just want it to be accounted for, at a rate that is equivalent to people who are paid staff.

I do not want my volunteer work to be compensated. I just want it to be accounted for, at a rate that is equivalent to people who are paid staff.

oliverpool commented 2022年12月02日 11:16:45 +01:00

The documentation for this issue is being written here:
forgejo/forgejo#68

The documentation for this issue is being written here: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/68

Ghost commented 2022年12月14日 20:11:43 +01:00

I'm going to close this since nobody objects to volunteers willing to have their work associated with monetary value. And the idea is not to impose that to everyone. Feel free to re-open if you think there is more to discuss.

I'm going to close this since nobody objects to volunteers willing to have their work associated with monetary value. And the idea is not to impose that to everyone. Feel free to re-open if you think there is more to discuss.

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月15日 09:25:15 +01:00

@dachary I formulated a clear objection to this method of having this kind of leaderboard contribution metric.

I feel it is highly discouraging to those who just contribute either for the joy of doing so, to be part of the project helping it to be better, or contributing to address their own needs, yet not seeing merit in tracking time.

It is discouraging to non-dev roles of people that give their 5 minutes advice here, and half hour effort there who also don't want to be burdened with administrative hour-tracking task.

With this system you are adding a Reputation metric. "Look how much I have done". I predict this will create friction, as the one not tracking time will be mentioned as "They also have done something" while that may be much more than those topping the leaderboard.

In addition I want to say.. Why this time-tracking? It feels like work. Like I am at the office and need to check-in, register my hours to get credit from my boss. It feels contra to joyful coding. Doesn't feel in any way FOSS'y to me.

@dachary I formulated a clear objection to this method of having this kind of leaderboard contribution metric. I feel it is highly discouraging to those who just contribute either for the joy of doing so, to be part of the project helping it to be better, or contributing to address their own needs, yet not seeing merit in tracking time. It is discouraging to non-dev roles of people that give their 5 minutes advice here, and half hour effort there who also don't want to be burdened with administrative hour-tracking task. With this system you are adding a Reputation metric. "Look how much I have done". I predict this will create friction, as the one not tracking time will be mentioned as "They also have done something" while that may be much more than those topping the leaderboard. In addition I want to say.. Why this time-tracking? It feels like work. Like I am at the office and need to check-in, register my hours to get credit from my boss. It feels contra to joyful coding. Doesn't feel in any way FOSS'y to me.

Ghost commented 2022年12月15日 10:23:20 +01:00

@dachary I formulated a clear objection to this method of having this kind of leaderboard contribution metric.

A leaderboard is not good, I agree. Forcing people to not disclose how much time they spend or how much money they made should they wish to is not good either.

https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability#forgejo-resources-per-year can be read as a leaderboard as people can be sorted according to how much time they spent and how much money they make.

How do you suggest people do when they want to be transparent about the time they spend and the money they make working on Forgejo?

> @dachary I formulated a clear objection to this method of having this kind of leaderboard contribution metric. A leaderboard is not good, I agree. Forcing people to not disclose how much time they spend or how much money they made should they wish to is not good either. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability#forgejo-resources-per-year can be read as a leaderboard as people can be sorted according to how much time they spent and how much money they make. How do you suggest people do when they want to be transparent about the time they spend and the money they make working on Forgejo?

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月16日 07:11:32 +01:00

I'd do this as suggested above:

In this case I would keep things simple:

• You contribute for the joy of doing so. You are listed as contributor (maybe with the type of contributions mentioned, idk) to honour you.

  • I've seen some GH widget + bot that automatically (or with a review step, idk) adds folks to a growing contributor table with their avatar + name + type of contribution shown. Forgot which project I saw that was using this.

• You get paid on the project, means you took a commitment and have resulting obligations that flow from it. That's worth money.

In addition to give recognition to really active contributors you might give a classification between them. Maybe at the time of elections for maintainers or in monthly meetings, where people can nominate other contributors to receive some badge to their name. It might be in the theme of smithing e.g.:

• Apprentice contributor
• Journeyperson contributor
• Blacksmith contributor
• Artisan contributor

The site might have a People directory where contributors are listed with some text in their honour that describes the types of work they have done and their achievements.

I'd do this as suggested above: > In this case I would keep things simple: > > - You contribute for the joy of doing so. You are listed as contributor (maybe with the type of contributions mentioned, idk) to honour you. > > - I've seen some GH widget + bot that automatically (or with a review step, idk) adds folks to a growing contributor table with their avatar + name + type of contribution shown. Forgot which project I saw that was using this. > > - You get paid on the project, means you took a commitment and have resulting obligations that flow from it. That's worth money. In addition to give recognition to really active contributors you might give a classification between them. Maybe at the time of elections for maintainers or in monthly meetings, where people can nominate other contributors to receive some badge to their name. It might be in the theme of smithing e.g.: - Apprentice contributor - Journeyperson contributor - Blacksmith contributor - Artisan contributor The site might have a People directory where contributors are listed with some text in their honour that describes the types of work they have done and their achievements.

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月16日 09:00:13 +01:00

Just found a nice Contributor section in a humane tech project to improve mental health: https://github.com/29ki/29k#contributors-

The section is based on this All Contributors project: https://github.com/all-contributors/all-contributors

Just found a nice Contributor section in a humane tech project to improve mental health: https://github.com/29ki/29k#contributors- The section is based on this All Contributors project: https://github.com/all-contributors/all-contributors

Ghost commented 2022年12月16日 09:42:46 +01:00

There is a similar discussion about curating a list of contributors and I think it's a great idea.

I do not suggest that https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability#forgejo-resources-per-year is fit for replacing such a list or even being advertised out of the context of sustainability. It does not contain anything about people who volunteer their time but their invovlment is essential to the project. It cannot replace a document like what https://github.com/all-contributors/all-contributors or https://humanstxt.org/ suggest.

Is this your concern or am I still not understanding the problem?

There is a similar discussion about curating a list of contributors and [I think it's a great idea](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/issues/26#issuecomment-702134). I do not suggest that https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability#forgejo-resources-per-year is fit for replacing such a list or even being advertised out of the context of sustainability. It does not contain anything about people who volunteer their time but their invovlment is essential to the project. It cannot replace a document like what https://github.com/all-contributors/all-contributors or https://humanstxt.org/ suggest. Is this your concern or am I still not understanding the problem?

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月16日 10:15:36 +01:00

In general I find tracking time of volunteers if this is just an arbitrary thing that some people do and others don't to be not very useful at best and detrimental to inclusive community ideas at worst.

In general I find tracking time of volunteers if this is just an arbitrary thing that some people do and others don't to be not very useful at best and detrimental to inclusive community ideas at worst.

Ghost commented 2022年12月16日 11:41:15 +01:00

I get how it is a sensitive topic and there are no examples to follow because no Free Software project is transparent about how people are funded for their work. Here is the problem: how can Forgejo be transparent about funding?

If someone donates 6,000€ to Forgejo this should be recorded, in a way similar to what OpenCollective does.

If someone donates one full time month of work of their time which is worth 6,000€ how should this be recorded?

I emphasize again that it is not about requiring that every contributor track their time: it is up to each of them to decide. Some contributors (like yourself) volunteer their time and have no interest in having it associated with a monetary value or measured in any way.

I strongly believe that every contributor (paid or volunteer) should be listed somewhere prominently in a way that have all of them on an equal footing. Such a list would not distinguish someone who volunteer by participating in a discussion during a few hours from someone who has been paid full time for their work.

I get how it is a sensitive topic and there are no examples to follow because no Free Software project is transparent about how people are funded for their work. Here is the problem: how can Forgejo be transparent about funding? If someone donates 6,000€ to Forgejo this should be recorded, in a way similar to what OpenCollective does. If someone donates one full time month of work of their time which is worth 6,000€ how should this be recorded? I emphasize again that it is not about requiring that every contributor track their time: it is up to each of them to decide. Some contributors (like yourself) volunteer their time and have no interest in having it associated with a monetary value or measured in any way. I strongly believe that every contributor (paid or volunteer) should be listed somewhere prominently in a way that have all of them on an equal footing. Such a list would not distinguish someone who volunteer by participating in a discussion during a few hours from someone who has been paid full time for their work.

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月16日 13:30:49 +01:00

If someone donates one full time month of work of their time which is worth 6,000€ how should this be recorded?

I asked this at the top of this issue, and if I understood correctly they aren't funded for that work. So in full transparency not mentioning those hours is fine.

Not recorded as hours spent, but honored by mentioning in Contributors section, like every contributions. And, given that this is a lot of work done, a decision may be to call this person a "Blacksmith contributor" if you want to have give some classification of small, medium, large contributions.

For those people who do receive funding you write it down, as it clearly belongs on the balance sheet of project expenses and requires transparency.

Maybe we are saying the same at this point, but misunderstanding. I would see it working as:

• sustainability.md: Lists every person who receives payment

• contributor.md (or whatever is used): Lists all contributors (paid and unpaid)

  • Maybe with kinds of contributions listed
  • Maybe with some classification to amount contributed (but not hours)
  • Maybe with some descriptive texts (like a profile page)

> If someone donates one full time month of work of their time which is worth 6,000€ how should this be recorded? I asked this at the top of this issue, and if I understood correctly they aren't funded for that work. So in full transparency not mentioning those hours is fine. Not recorded as hours spent, but honored by mentioning in Contributors section, like every contributions. And, given that this is a lot of work done, a decision may be to call this person a "Blacksmith contributor" if you want to have give some classification of small, medium, large contributions. For those people who do receive funding you write it down, as it clearly belongs on the balance sheet of project expenses and requires transparency. Maybe we are saying the same at this point, but misunderstanding. I would see it working as: - `sustainability.md`: Lists every person who receives payment - `contributor.md` (or whatever is used): Lists all contributors (paid and unpaid) - Maybe with kinds of contributions listed - Maybe with some classification to amount contributed (but not hours) - Maybe with some descriptive texts (like a profile page)

Ghost commented 2022年12月16日 16:39:05 +01:00

Maybe we are saying the same at this point, but misunderstanding.

I think so too :-)

Sustainability.md: Lists every person who receives payment

Yes.

contributor.md (or whatever is used): Lists all contributors (paid and unpaid)

Yes.

I'm glad we are converging!

One more question: what about people who self-fund their work? Is it legitimate to consider they receive payment and list them in sustainability?

For instance, it is easy for someone in France to contribute to a Free Software project during a full year, full time, after being fired from their job. The state provides up to two years of unemployment.

If such a person wants to record this kind of funding as: "one year of full time contribution payed by the French government via unemployment for a total of X€" would you agree that it belongs in the "Sustainability.md" file?

> Maybe we are saying the same at this point, but misunderstanding. I think so too :-) > Sustainability.md: Lists every person who receives payment Yes. > contributor.md (or whatever is used): Lists all contributors (paid and unpaid) Yes. I'm glad we are converging! One more question: what about people who self-fund their work? Is it legitimate to consider they receive payment and list them in sustainability? For instance, it is easy for someone in France to contribute to a Free Software project during a full year, full time, after being fired from their job. The state provides up to two years of unemployment. If such a person wants to record this kind of funding as: "one year of full time contribution payed by the French government via unemployment for a total of X€" would you agree that it belongs in the "Sustainability.md" file?

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月17日 08:42:42 +01:00

It depends. If they have to proof to the French government that they worked on Forgejo as a precondition to receive the money, then the money can be considered as the French government indirectly funding Forgejo.

If on the other hand the French government gives 2 years of payment regardless, and people can do what they want, work on whatever they want, then their income is unrelated to Forgejo - it is their personal business - and has no place on Sustainability, imho.

In other words if people receive money on the precondition of doing actual work on Forgejo, they aren't volunteers but paid contributors as well.

If this precondition does not exist, there's no need to administer it, and these folks are just regular volunteers mentioned in Contributors.

It depends. If they have to proof to the French government that they worked on Forgejo as a precondition to receive the money, then the money can be considered as the French government indirectly funding Forgejo. If on the other hand the French government gives 2 years of payment regardless, and people can do what they want, work on whatever they want, then their income is unrelated to Forgejo - it is their personal business - and has no place on Sustainability, imho. In other words if people receive money on the precondition of doing actual work on Forgejo, they aren't volunteers but paid contributors as well. If this precondition does not exist, there's no need to administer it, and these folks are just regular volunteers mentioned in Contributors.

Ghost commented 2022年12月17日 13:58:18 +01:00

Ok, it is not paid by the french government with the intent of funding Forgejo. The volunteer has X€ (regardless of where it comes from). They decided to spend these X€ to self fund their work on Forgejo. They could have decided to donate the money to Forgejo to pay someone else to do the work. Or to spend it on something else.

If such a person wants to record this kind of funding as: "one year of full time contribution self funded thanks to the money I received from an undisclosed source for a total of X€" would you agree that it belongs in the "Sustainability.md" file?

Ok, it is not paid by the french government with the intent of funding Forgejo. The volunteer has X€ (regardless of where it comes from). They decided to spend these X€ to self fund their work on Forgejo. They could have decided to donate the money to Forgejo to pay someone else to do the work. Or to spend it on something else. If such a person wants to record this kind of funding as: "one year of full time contribution self funded thanks to the money I received from an undisclosed source for a total of X€" would you agree that it belongs in the "Sustainability.md" file?

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月18日 13:18:18 +01:00

Not really, no. It belongs in their personal administration, and they may want to display it on their personal website or curriculum vitae.

Not really, no. It belongs in their personal administration, and they may want to display it on their personal website or curriculum vitae.

gapodo commented 2022年12月18日 13:31:00 +01:00

If it's from a grant that is not directly targeting forgejo but e.g. foss contributions, I'd tend to list it as "one year of full time contribution self funded thanks to a <type/purpose> grant from <undisclosed source/source name> for a total of X€" or similar, showing that there are grants backing contributors is "nice" to see / gives an idea on how things are funded.

I see indirect funding that is used for forgejo as somewhat relevant, as it's a source of contributor time / freedom to contribute, IIRC here in Austria most grants are not bound to a product but rather a purpose and dedicated to people, which then go ahead and use the money according to the purpose of the grant.

It gets more difficult with money that is not contributed as grant / donation, but a business transaction (i.e. customer x pays me to develop a feature), but with grants there are often requirements on transparency, meaning, that the project "needs" to list the work/money received for the grant to be applicable (the person contributing not getting into legal troubles).

Part of this could be moved from sustainability to something else, but things can get bureaucratic nightmares when government funding is involved...

If it's from a grant that is not directly targeting forgejo but e.g. foss contributions, I'd tend to list it as "one year of full time contribution self funded thanks to a <type/purpose> grant from <undisclosed source/source name> for a total of X€" or similar, showing that there are grants backing contributors is "nice" to see / gives an idea on how things are funded. I see indirect funding that is used for forgejo as somewhat relevant, as it's a source of contributor time / freedom to contribute, IIRC here in Austria most grants are not bound to a product but rather a purpose and dedicated to people, which then go ahead and use the money according to the purpose of the grant. It gets more difficult with money that is not contributed as grant / donation, but a business transaction (i.e. customer x pays me to develop a feature), but with grants there are often requirements on transparency, meaning, that the project "needs" to list the work/money received for the grant to be applicable (the person contributing not getting into legal troubles). Part of this could be moved from sustainability to something else, but things can get bureaucratic nightmares when government funding is involved...

Ghost commented 2022年12月18日 15:24:54 +01:00

Not really, no. It belongs in their personal administration, and they may want to display it on their personal website or curriculum vitae.

So, in your opinion, it makes no difference in terms of sustainability that ten people work full time on Forgejo or that those same ten people work one day per year? This is not an information to consider when building a strategy for Forgejo?

> Not really, no. It belongs in their personal administration, and they may want to display it on their personal website or curriculum vitae. So, in your opinion, it makes no difference in terms of sustainability that ten people work full time on Forgejo or that those same ten people work one day per year? This is not an information to consider when building a strategy for Forgejo?

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月18日 17:29:11 +01:00

Of course it makes a difference. Similar to having a few contributions here and there and having hundreds of active contributors. My argument is against some contributors being attributed for the amounts of work they've done because they are willing to track time spent, versus other contributors that may do the same amount of work or more, but do not track it.

Of course it makes a difference. Similar to having a few contributions here and there and having hundreds of active contributors. My argument is against some contributors being attributed for the amounts of work they've done because they are willing to track time spent, versus other contributors that may do the same amount of work or more, but do not track it.

Ghost commented 2022年12月18日 18:34:29 +01:00

I understand and value the problem. I'm grateful that you take the time to discuss it, we are exploring uncharted territories here.

There is a tension between the need to:

• measure the sustainability of Forgejo
• ensure all contributors are on an equal footing

If there is a policy that explicitly hides how much time people spend working on Forgejo, there effectively is no way to measure if and how Forgejo can be sustainable.

If contributors who only contribute occasionally to Forgejo are not taken into account, although they will always be a majority, it makes Forgejo less inclusive.

I believe that having two documents in two different places with two very different kind of exposure is a way to solve that problem.

• In the sustainability repository sustainability.md records all and every money/hours people are willing to record if they are so inclined. It belongs to the sustainability repository and is not publicized or advertized, except when talking about sustainability. Which is, as you and I very well know, the least popular topic there is.
• In the main forgejo repository contributors.md records every contributor with no ranking, no consideration about how or why they came to participate. There is no link to the sustainability.md file because it would otherwise create, even if indirectly, a kind of leaderboard that is not positive.

As a volunteer contributor I would be glad to have a single source to look at to get an estimate of the amount of time / money Forgejo requires to keep going. It is important to me to know if the project is overcommiting, trying to reach goals that are entirely unrealistic compared to the available workforce / money it has. I would also want to know if the project has a lot more workforce / money than I would expect for an endeavor of such modest ambitions.

As a paid staff I would be glad to look at the sustainabiliy.md document to figure out how much Forgejo depends on me. If there are ten other people working full time on Forgejo, it is a very different situation than if I'm the only one paid full time.

And finally, as a user, I would find very useful to look at the sustainability.md document to get and idea of how likely the project is to keep going. If there is very little workforce / money, I may be inclined to help out and contribute. And I'll probably be more careful with regard to my dependencies to Forgejo.

The contributors.md file tells an entirely different story, involves an order of magnitude more people. It tells everyone how inclusive Forgejo effectively is and if it works in the interest of the general public or not. Subtract all people listed in sustainability.md from contributors.md and look at what they do, how influencial they are in the decisions, how much of the overall activity seems to depend on them. If the conclusion is that they account for the majority of the work, it is a strong guarantee that the project is truly oriented towards the needs of the general public and inclusive. Otherwise it tells you that it is likely dominated by one or a few companies and that, despite an appearance of being community led, it really is heavily influenced by corporate needs / client needs.

What do you think?

I understand and value the problem. I'm grateful that you take the time to discuss it, we are exploring uncharted territories here. There is a tension between the need to: * measure the sustainability of Forgejo * ensure all contributors are on an equal footing If there is a policy that explicitly hides how much time people spend working on Forgejo, there effectively is no way to measure if and how Forgejo can be sustainable. If contributors who only contribute occasionally to Forgejo are not taken into account, although they will always be a majority, it makes Forgejo less inclusive. I believe that having two documents in two different places with two very different kind of exposure is a way to solve that problem. * In the sustainability repository sustainability.md records all and every money/hours people are willing to record if they are so inclined. It belongs to the sustainability repository and is not publicized or advertized, except when talking about sustainability. Which is, as you and I very well know, the least popular topic there is. * In the main forgejo repository contributors.md records every contributor with no ranking, no consideration about how or why they came to participate. There is no link to the sustainability.md file because it would otherwise create, even if indirectly, a kind of leaderboard that is not positive. As a volunteer contributor I would be glad to have a single source to look at to get an estimate of the amount of time / money Forgejo requires to keep going. It is important to me to know if the project is overcommiting, trying to reach goals that are entirely unrealistic compared to the available workforce / money it has. I would also want to know if the project has a lot more workforce / money than I would expect for an endeavor of such modest ambitions. As a paid staff I would be glad to look at the sustainabiliy.md document to figure out how much Forgejo depends on me. If there are ten other people working full time on Forgejo, it is a very different situation than if I'm the only one paid full time. And finally, as a user, I would find very useful to look at the sustainability.md document to get and idea of how likely the project is to keep going. If there is very little workforce / money, I may be inclined to help out and contribute. And I'll probably be more careful with regard to my dependencies to Forgejo. The contributors.md file tells an entirely different story, involves an order of magnitude more people. It tells everyone how inclusive Forgejo effectively is and if it works in the interest of the general public or not. Subtract all people listed in sustainability.md from contributors.md and look at what they do, how influencial they are in the decisions, how much of the overall activity seems to depend on them. If the conclusion is that they account for the majority of the work, it is a strong guarantee that the project is truly oriented towards the needs of the general public and inclusive. Otherwise it tells you that it is likely dominated by one or a few companies and that, despite an appearance of being community led, it really is heavily influenced by corporate needs / client needs. What do you think?

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月19日 08:52:21 +01:00

Yes, with the separation you describe it is okay to have both metrics tracked. So yes, going ahead that way is fine to me.

---

(Separately only on the subject of sustainability now)

I can see that it is handy to have a list somewhere of people who said they'd have a level of commitment to Forgejo. How reliable and useful it actually is remains to be seen. But for that time will tell.

You should beware that this reminder list only expresses intent to commit. If someone is getting 2-year income to spend freely on any project and they say "I will commit to work next year on Forgejo" there's only that intent and in practice they might just spend a single month. This has no more weight or value than someone saying "I commit to nothing, but think I will be an active contributor".

If you use the metrics to track hours already spent, then you have the situation that some people take on that administration and others do not while they may be more active.

(By no means let this detract from recording that way, if it is your preferred method)

When I was working in a big scaled agile setting on a project with in total I think a total of about ~400 people developing on it, there was no one doing time-tracking.

Instead all the metrics being collected were of a different nature. Like velocity, time-of-delivery of features, time of issues on the board, backlog growth and I don't know.. numerous criteria and people who knew how to generate useful reports from them.

When it comes to getting a good feeling of what you can commit to in terms of delivery, then those may be more useful.

OTOH in FOSS projects I also see more of a relaxed attitude.. "we deliver with what we have available, and do not commit to fixed dates of delivery because we can't". Less overhead and pressure on maintainers and fits better to grassroots development. Now if someone has earned a grant that is tied to a set of milestones you may be able to say "I will deliver this on that functionality on that date". When it is just soft commitments to work from, instead of trying to estimate and give dates you might just say "This is next on the roadmap. Help us and you will get it sooner".

Yes, with the separation you describe it is okay to have both metrics tracked. So yes, going ahead that way is fine to me. --- (Separately only on the subject of sustainability now) I can see that it is handy to have a list somewhere of people who _said_ they'd have a level of commitment to Forgejo. How reliable and useful it _actually_ is remains to be seen. But for that time will tell. You should beware that this reminder list only expresses _intent to commit_. If someone is getting 2-year income to spend freely on any project and they say "I will commit to work next year on Forgejo" there's only that intent and in practice they might just spend a single month. This has no more weight or value than someone saying "I commit to nothing, but think I will be an active contributor". If you use the metrics to track hours already spent, then you have the situation that some people take on that administration and others do not while they may be more active. (By no means let this detract from recording that way, if it is your preferred method) When I was working in a big scaled agile setting on a project with in total I think a total of about ~400 people developing on it, there was no one doing time-tracking. Instead all the metrics being collected were of a different nature. Like velocity, time-of-delivery of features, time of issues on the board, backlog growth and I don't know.. numerous criteria and people who knew how to generate useful reports from them. When it comes to getting a good feeling of what you can commit to in terms of delivery, then those may be more useful. OTOH in FOSS projects I also see more of a relaxed attitude.. "we deliver with what we have available, and do not commit to fixed dates of delivery because we can't". Less overhead and pressure on maintainers and fits better to grassroots development. Now if someone has earned a grant that is tied to a set of milestones you may be able to say "I will deliver this on that functionality on that date". When it is just soft commitments to work from, instead of trying to estimate and give dates you might just say "This is next on the roadmap. Help us and you will get it sooner".

Ghost commented 2022年12月19日 10:19:56 +01:00

Yes, with the separation you describe it is okay to have both metrics tracked. So yes, going ahead that way is fine to me.

Just to be sure I'm not misrepresenting what you wrote, you would not be opposed to a contributor asking that the time / money they spent working on Forgejo is recorded in the https://codeberg.org/forgejo/funding repository, as long as they are listed in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo as a contributor without associating their activity with any kind of quantitative (time / money) measure.

In any case I'll leave this topic open for a little while to give people a chance to voice their concerns.

> Yes, with the separation you describe it is okay to have both metrics tracked. So yes, going ahead that way is fine to me. Just to be sure I'm not misrepresenting what you wrote, you would not be opposed to a contributor asking that the time / money they spent working on Forgejo is recorded in the https://codeberg.org/forgejo/funding repository, as long as they are listed in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo as a contributor without associating their activity with any kind of quantitative (time / money) measure. In any case I'll leave this topic open for a little while to give people a chance to voice their concerns.

Ghost commented 2022年12月19日 11:33:40 +01:00

I can see that it is handy to have a list somewhere of people who said they'd have a level of commitment to Forgejo. How reliable and useful it actually is remains to be seen. But for that time will tell.

My personal approach to efficiency (i.e. the ratio between time/money spent and the work done) is to measure it and accept it as it is. I do not believe anyone should be held to a given efficiency standard. But I do believe that everyone has, at a given point in time, a fairly stable efficiency.

In my case, I wrote down that I was paid full time to work on Forgejo, all of November 2022. Looking at the tasks I did during that time, people will form an opinon about my efficiency and this is fine, we're human we can't help but form opinions :-). What would not be fine is if someone expressed that opinion publicly, either positively to say that they find my efficiency to be good, or negatively to say that they find that my efficiency is bad.

Let's take an extreme case where someone is paid full time during a year to work on Forgejo and is written down in the sustainability document. And this person did nothing at all. The efficiency is zero. Is it something that must be fixed somehow? I don't think so. What matters is that it is visible instead of hidden. If that person declares that they will be funded for another year, an observer can conclude that it will not have an impact on Forgejo because, in all likelyhood, they will keep doing nothing. If the money this person receives prevents someone else from being paid to work on Forgejo that is a problem worth solving. I do not believe it is possible to implement, in the governance of Forgejo, some kind of safeguard that will help resolve that particular problem. And there are zillion others.

In Forgefriends (and Gitea) short history, there were a few instances where the problem of efficiency was raised and that was for me the opportunity to reflect on what it means and how to go about it. I fully expect that people will find that my stance on blindly accepting whatever efficiency ratio people have simplistic. But I'm pretty sure nobody has any idea on how to effectively have an impact on that ratio in the context of a Free Software project. There are no Free Software project that is transparent about funding but if there was, I'm convinced it will show a very high variance in efficiency and very little effort spent to improve it.

> I can see that it is handy to have a list somewhere of people who said they'd have a level of commitment to Forgejo. How reliable and useful it actually is remains to be seen. But for that time will tell. My personal approach to efficiency (i.e. the ratio between time/money spent and the work done) is to measure it and accept it as it is. I do not believe anyone should be held to a given efficiency standard. But I do believe that everyone has, at a given point in time, a fairly stable efficiency. In my case, I wrote down that I was paid full time to work on Forgejo, all of November 2022. Looking at the tasks I did during that time, people will form an opinon about my efficiency and this is fine, we're human we can't help but form opinions :-). What would not be fine is if someone expressed that opinion publicly, either positively to say that they find my efficiency to be good, or negatively to say that they find that my efficiency is bad. Let's take an extreme case where someone is paid full time during a year to work on Forgejo and is written down in the sustainability document. And this person did nothing at all. The efficiency is zero. Is it something that must be fixed somehow? I don't think so. What matters is that it is visible instead of hidden. If that person declares that they will be funded for another year, an observer can conclude that it will not have an impact on Forgejo because, in all likelyhood, they will keep doing nothing. If the money this person receives prevents someone else from being paid to work on Forgejo that is a problem worth solving. I do not believe it is possible to implement, in the governance of Forgejo, some kind of safeguard that will help resolve that particular problem. And there are zillion others. In Forgefriends (and Gitea) short history, there were a few instances where the problem of efficiency was raised and that was for me the opportunity to reflect on what it means and how to go about it. I fully expect that people will find that my stance on blindly accepting whatever efficiency ratio people have simplistic. But I'm pretty sure nobody has any idea on how to effectively have an impact on that ratio in the context of a Free Software project. There are no Free Software project that is transparent about funding but if there was, I'm convinced it will show a very high variance in efficiency and very little effort spent to improve it.

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月19日 12:00:14 +01:00

Hmm, here in your third paragraph you have a different example, of someone paid to work on Forgejo. That is different and should definitely be part of Sustainability. But when receiving incoming in other context, independent and not related to the project and yet voluntarily spending time on Forgejo, is yet another issue.

I don't know about best-practices but still feel that measuring (or indirectly gauging) someone's efficiency and then making judgment calls on that, when they have no actual obligations, can easily become counter-productive. You may be creating a set of (more or less implicit) expectations that will hold contributors back to contribute.

The fact that some person didn't contribute the way they seemed to be willing to do earlier on, says nothing of how they might contribute in the future. Their inactivity can have many reasons, like personal circumstances, or because some functional area that others were working isn't progressing as fast and they are just not motivated enough as long as their pet feature cannot be added on top of that.

I can imagine that you as paid maintainer and with a preference for a methodical work method likes to have some feel for the resources available. And I'd encourage to experiment with what works and not. But as approach I'd rather go from doing too little in terms of formal registration than going too quickly and doing too much of 'pomp and ceremony', before you know well how it affects culture and dynamics of the project.

Instead of putting these things in place now, I'd advise waiting. First get a good cadence of project work going, get governance more well-oiled and engrained with community structure and culture. Then only formalize as-needed and by bringing these topic up well-prepared at community meetups.

Hmm, here in your third paragraph you have a different example, of someone _paid_ to work on Forgejo. That is different and should definitely be part of Sustainability. But when receiving incoming in other context, independent and not related to the project and yet voluntarily spending time on Forgejo, is yet another issue. I don't know about best-practices but still feel that measuring (or indirectly gauging) someone's efficiency and then making judgment calls on that, when they have no actual obligations, can easily become counter-productive. You may be creating a set of (more or less implicit) expectations that will hold contributors back to contribute. The fact that some person didn't contribute the way they seemed to be willing to do earlier on, says nothing of how they might contribute in the future. Their inactivity can have many reasons, like personal circumstances, or because some functional area that others were working isn't progressing as fast and they are just not motivated enough as long as their pet feature cannot be added on top of that. I can imagine that you as paid maintainer and with a preference for a methodical work method likes to have some feel for the resources available. And I'd encourage to experiment with what works and not. But as approach I'd rather go from doing too little in terms of formal registration than going too quickly and doing too much of 'pomp and ceremony', before you know well how it affects culture and dynamics of the project. Instead of putting these things in place now, I'd advise waiting. First get a good cadence of project work going, get governance more well-oiled and engrained with community structure and culture. Then only formalize as-needed and by bringing these topic up well-prepared at community meetups.

Ghost commented 2022年12月19日 13:31:01 +01:00

The fact that some person didn't contribute the way they seemed to be willing to do earlier on, says nothing of how they might contribute in the future.

It does not provide a way to predict with 100% certainty what will happen in the future. But I often assume that people will just keep doing what they have been doing in the recent past. I find that people with random behavior (for whatever reason) are rare.

> The fact that some person didn't contribute the way they seemed to be willing to do earlier on, says nothing of how they might contribute in the future. It does not provide a way to predict with 100% certainty what will happen in the future. But I often assume that people will just keep doing what they have been doing in the recent past. I find that people with random behavior (for whatever reason) are rare.

Ghost commented 2022年12月19日 13:37:19 +01:00

First get a good cadence of project work going, get governance more well-oiled and engrained with community structure and culture.

How long do you figure that will take? My gut feeling is between six months if all goes real fast and two to three years if progress is slow. If I had to bet, I'd say between 12 to 18 months.

> First get a good cadence of project work going, get governance more well-oiled and engrained with community structure and culture. How long do you figure that will take? My gut feeling is between six months if all goes real fast and two to three years if progress is slow. If I had to bet, I'd say between 12 to 18 months.

Ghost commented 2022年12月19日 13:47:02 +01:00

I can imagine that you as paid maintainer and with a preference for a methodical work method likes to have some feel for the resources available.

I have no need for this myself because I'm so deeply and daily into the project that I get a feel for the resources available anyways. My intention here is to allow other people to get some clarity on the matter.

As a contributor to other projects I find it often frustrating that, because there is no publicly available information, the only way to figure out anything regarding the sustainability of a project is by observing what people do, try to guess who's paid and who is not, try to guess if there are companies or not and who works for who.

I've been doing that for so long that it takes me less than a few hours of research to get a good educated guess. But sometime I'm very wrong and Gitea was one remarkable instance: everything was so carefully concealed from the public that I came to the conclusion that it was a community led project, back in 2021. Although it was already something quite different.

> I can imagine that you as paid maintainer and with a preference for a methodical work method likes to have some feel for the resources available. I have no need for this myself because I'm so deeply and daily into the project that I get a feel for the resources available anyways. My intention here is to allow other people to get some clarity on the matter. As a contributor to other projects I find it often frustrating that, because there is no publicly available information, the only way to figure out anything regarding the sustainability of a project is by observing what people do, try to guess who's paid and who is not, try to guess if there are companies or not and who works for who. I've been doing that for so long that it takes me less than a few hours of research to get a good educated guess. But sometime I'm very wrong and Gitea was one remarkable instance: everything was so carefully concealed from the public that I came to the conclusion that it was a community led project, back in 2021. Although it was already something quite different.

circlebuilder commented 2022年12月20日 08:46:22 +01:00

First get a good cadence of project work going, get governance more well-oiled and engrained with community structure and culture.

How long do you figure that will take? My gut feeling is between six months if all goes real fast and two to three years if progress is slow. If I had to bet, I'd say between 12 to 18 months.

Maybe the "well-oiled and engrained" was a bit too much in my description. I am thinking of "within few months".

Approach is more one of: Start with the most basic process and add bells and whistles as-needed and based on experience and with a community feedback + consensus (e.g. when doing some kind of retrospective in a monthly meetup).

Rather than add things upfront, which add maintenance burden and ceremony / formality. It is better to add later, than to remove later (or not remove at all, even when it is not that useful a metric).

>>First get a good cadence of project work going, get governance more well-oiled and engrained with community structure and culture. > >How long do you figure that will take? My gut feeling is between six months if all goes real fast and two to three years if progress is slow. If I had to bet, I'd say between 12 to 18 months. Maybe the "well-oiled and engrained" was a bit too much in my description. I am thinking of "within few months". Approach is more one of: Start with the most basic process and add bells and whistles as-needed and based on experience and with a community feedback + consensus (e.g. when doing some kind of retrospective in a monthly meetup). Rather than add things upfront, which add maintenance burden and ceremony / formality. It is better to add later, than to remove later (or not remove at all, even when it is not that useful a metric).

Ghost commented 2023年01月13日 11:15:17 +01:00

The followups could be:

• Creating a list of contributors unsorted as a recurring task (monthly?)
• Referencing these two lists of Forgejo contributors (i.e. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability and the unsorted list) somewhere.

The followups could be: * Creating a list of contributors unsorted as a recurring task (monthly?) * Referencing these two lists of Forgejo contributors (i.e. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability and the unsorted list) somewhere.

Ghost commented 2023年02月02日 10:40:38 +01:00

I believe this is now resolved with the monthly publication of the Forgejo contributors & paid staff as shown in the january monthly report. Feel free to re-open if you disagree.

I believe this is now resolved with the monthly publication of the Forgejo contributors & paid staff as shown in the [january monthly report](https://forgejo.org/2023-01-31-monthly-update/#we-forge). Feel free to re-open if you disagree.