Hi all. Shortly before FOSDEM, I was messaged by a member of the free and open-source software community (with a background in promoting said software; we had briefly communicated before) that planned a meeting with an official who, in a previous brief conversation, expressed interest in "get some wheels moving" to financially support Codeberg and Forgejo. They suggested to meet the next day–completely out of the blue–but I took it very seriously, so I gathered a set of people contributing to both projects and we answered questions about e.g. both projects’ governance, relationship and progress in a non-binding fashion–we talked about how the projects work, so that they’d be prepared for the meeting.
Now, the person we met with got back to us with a question that I wish to relay to the greater Forgejo community: Can you help us compile a list of things that you would like to see supported (financially/materially)? Just a small line describing each thing with few words, together with a rough time/material estimate (if possible). Such things could include e.g. goalposts related to federation, moderation, UI/UX, whatever–this is not for a grant with a limited scope: The more, the merrier. It doesn’t matter if you contribute personally or not, but if you do, you might have greater insights that e.g. I don’t. Personal opinions can help compared to e.g. linking every issue in Forgejo’s issue trackers :)
For now, I was asked to not disclose the name of the institution yet. I understand that my request is unorthodox and vague, so I will try to justify it: This is not a request to help form a concrete proposal to be submitted–this is not for a typical grant application (or any grant at all). It’s pure spitballing. All discussions are informal and in early stages, but there is potential that they can turn formal–for which I’d like assistance, so that more points of view can be represented, up until the point where it all starts to take form and "become formal" (instead of following a "black box process" until the "output" is ready to be shared as part of a proposal that would've appeared out of nowhere)–then it will be the right time. Given the irregularity of the situation and the sensitiveness, I was (and still kind of am) worried about getting the transparency aspects right, especially as it has been a subject of mild controversy in the past. Before I wrote this, I checked with two Forgejo contributors (that I’d rather not name) and got the impression that this is fine under the circumstances, as long as I explain–if this turns out to not represent consensus, we’re open to feedback.
If you're in any way interested about the circumstances, I have prepared a set of bullet points here.
- During FOSDEM, we met someone (who had pre-planned to meet an official the next day) to talk about Codeberg/Forgejo. We gave non-binding information and context about governance and sustainability. They appeared enthusiastic and experienced, as well as curious as to where things stood. However, none of us were in the meeting with the official; the circumstances differ to those when we met an official virtually (and kept notes).
- I have been reassured that the character was, is, and would remain non-binding for a while, but gathered contributors of Codeberg and Forgejo "just to be safe". "Non-binding" also means "unofficial", "very early", etc. -> hence why "best not to say anything before this takes
- No side involved has a concept of the scope/goals/goalposts yet; all of this is informal and "unserious", but responses could help this take form. I think there is potential, but it might be a nothingburger. I only know "who met with whom", the institution and that there’s interest. I think that’s the most anyone knows, the official
- I wrote this text on my own accord, but didn’t e.g. seek out everyone’s permission to be named (I only got permission to name @dpk so far) and didn’t have the energy to do so, so I have omitted the names for now; I can ask for permission to share them if requested. I stated that I am neither representing Codeberg’s Presidium nor the Forgejo project/community singlehandedly, and I’d like to reiterate that this applies to the text I wrote as well.
- Even if "this doesn’t go anywhere in the end", I hope that it might raise some light on some underrepresented aspects.
My goal is not to make anyone here feel uneasy, so if there are any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out–I expect that others with knowledge of the events might be able to add something as well. I can provide some additional context in private (what I omitted here), but I’d ask that you don’t share publicly so as to not put the third party in a difficult position.
If there’s any concerns or questions, feel free to reach out. It might take a few days for me to respond at the moment.
Hi all. Shortly before FOSDEM, I was messaged by a member of the free and open-source software community (with a background in promoting said software; we had briefly communicated before) that planned a meeting with an official who, in a previous brief conversation, expressed interest in "get some wheels moving" to financially support Codeberg and Forgejo. They suggested to meet the next day–completely out of the blue–but I took it very seriously, so I gathered a set of people contributing to both projects and we answered questions about e.g. both projects’ governance, relationship and progress in a non-binding fashion–we talked about how the projects work, so that they’d be prepared for the meeting.
Now, the person we met with got back to us with a question that I wish to relay to the greater Forgejo community: **Can you help us compile a list of things that you would like to see supported (financially/materially)?** Just a small line describing each thing with few words, together with a rough time/material estimate (if possible). Such things could include e.g. goalposts related to federation, moderation, UI/UX, whatever–this is not for a grant with a limited scope: The more, the merrier. It doesn’t matter if you contribute personally or not, but if you do, you might have greater insights that e.g. I don’t. Personal opinions can help compared to e.g. linking every issue in Forgejo’s issue trackers :)
---
For now, I was asked to not disclose the name of the institution yet. I understand that my request is unorthodox and vague, so I will try to justify it: This is not a request to help form a concrete proposal to be submitted–this is not for a typical grant application (or any grant at all). It’s pure spitballing. All discussions are informal and in early stages, but there is potential that they can turn formal–for which I’d like assistance, so that more points of view can be represented, up until the point where it all starts to take form and "become formal" (instead of following a "black box process" until the "output" is ready to be shared as part of a proposal that would've appeared out of nowhere)–then it will be the right time. Given the irregularity of the situation and the sensitiveness, I was (and still kind of am) worried about getting the transparency aspects right, especially as it has been a subject of mild controversy in the past. Before I wrote this, I checked with two Forgejo contributors (that I’d rather not name) and got the impression that this is fine under the circumstances, as long as I explain–if this turns out to not represent consensus, we’re open to feedback.
<details>
<summary>If you're in any way interested about the circumstances, I have prepared a set of bullet points here.</summary>
- During FOSDEM, we met someone (who had pre-planned to meet an official the next day) to talk about Codeberg/Forgejo. We gave non-binding information and context about governance and sustainability. They appeared enthusiastic and experienced, as well as curious as to where things stood. However, none of us were in the meeting with the official; the circumstances differ to those when we met an official virtually (and kept notes).
- I have been reassured that the character was, is, and would remain non-binding for a while, but gathered contributors of Codeberg and Forgejo "just to be safe". "Non-binding" also means "unofficial", "very early", etc. -> hence why "best not to say anything before this takes
- No side involved has a concept of the scope/goals/goalposts yet; all of this is informal and "unserious", but responses could help this take form. I think there is potential, but it might be a nothingburger. I only know "who met with whom", the institution and that there’s interest. I think that’s the most anyone knows, the official
- I wrote this text on my own accord, but didn’t e.g. seek out everyone’s permission to be named (I only got permission to name @dpk so far) and didn’t have the energy to do so, so I have omitted the names for now; I can ask for permission to share them if requested. I stated that I am neither representing Codeberg’s Presidium nor the Forgejo project/community singlehandedly, and I’d like to reiterate that this applies to the text I wrote as well.
- Even if "this doesn’t go anywhere in the end", I hope that it might raise some light on some underrepresented aspects.
</details>
My goal is not to make anyone here feel uneasy, so if there are any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out–I expect that others with knowledge of the events might be able to add something as well. I can provide some additional context in private (what I omitted here), but I’d ask that you don’t share publicly so as to not put the third party in a difficult position.
If there’s any concerns or questions, feel free to reach out. It might take a few days for me to respond at the moment.