upvote

points

by briffle6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby armchairhacker6 hours ago|
next
[-]
Nominate any public git repo

(or at least Codeberg, SourceHut, etc.)

reply
upvoteby hedora6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Not the person you replied to, but I imagine less gameable signals than stars would make sense. Download count, default installs in multiple distros, industrial use cases in the cloud all come to mind.

Maybe giving money to the endowment gives you a vote? (Kills two birds with one stone.)

reply
upvoteby whit5376 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The details of how we're thinking about this are in:

https://github.com/osendowment/model

Happy to have you join us there to iterate on the model. We do prioritize input from paid-up members ofc. ;^)

reply
upvoteby matkoniecz1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> We aim to focus our support on the core of open-source ecosystems — like ~1% of packages accounting for 99% of downloads and dependencies

I guess this is core of plan and will not change?

Because I was thinking about projects like OpenStreetMap which are generating very useful data used by various open source projects, but are not by itself gathering very big pile of dependencies.

I guess that those would be out of scope.

(note: for OpenStreetMap itself I have gigantic conflict of interest, I received some OSM-related grants for software development)

reply
upvoteby verdverm4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> We do prioritize input from paid-up members ofc.

Pay-to-play, this reinforces the SV mindset underpinning all of this.

Strongly recommend you revise this if you are trying to present yourself as egalitarian. Feedback and suggestions for improvement ought to be considered on the merits, not who it came from, especially if money is the differentiator. (setting aside the natural reputation based weighting)

reply