CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, Feb 25, 2026 - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, Feb 25, 2026 ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/968ZZyDWcZQ/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, Feb 25, 2026](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=968ZZyDWcZQ) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #open-source #funding #sustainability #research #maintainers > author: Garrick Aden-Buie > source: CHAOSS Community > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=968ZZyDWcZQ > date created: 2024-12-28 15:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: CHAOSS Funding Impact Working Group Research on Open Source Funding Dynamics >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Review geographic funding distribution gaps outside US/Europe — 15:23 #open-source - [H2] Implement monthly reporting cycles for funded projects — 32:45 #funding - [H3] Explore cohort-based funding models to reduce power differentials — 35:12 #sustainability ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [FOSDEM Presentation](https://fosdem.org) - [CHAOSS Community](https://chaoss.community) ## 📝 Summary - CHAOSS researchers studied open source funding from both maintainer and funder perspectives - Funding heavily concentrated in US and Europe with significant geographic gaps elsewhere - Selection criteria rely more on personal relationships than objective metrics - Impact measurement focuses on stories and qualitative outcomes rather than pure metrics - Monthly reporting cycles and cohort models show promise for better funding outcomes ## 📖 Main Content The research team of Garrick, Johan, and Kevin conducted a comprehensive study examining open source funding dynamics from multiple perspectives. After previously studying maintainer needs and finding that funding was just one component of required "human infrastructure," they shifted focus to understand funder perspectives on project selection and impact measurement. Their methodology involved approximately 20 interviews with funders across various organizations including foundations like Eclipse, government agencies like Sovereign Tech Agency, and programs like Alpha Omega. The research revealed significant geographic concentration of funding sources primarily in the US and Europe, with notable gaps in funding availability across other continents. A key finding was that project selection relies heavily on personal relationships and "finger in the air" approaches rather than standardized metrics. This creates both opportunities for trust-based funding but also potential fragility when key relationship holders leave organizations. Impact measurement emerged as a complex challenge, with funders needing to balance quantitative metrics with compelling narratives for stakeholders who control funding sources. The absence of negative outcomes (prevented security breaches, avoided disasters) proves particularly difficult to measure and report. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=0) — [H1] Research motivation and background - Key idea: Study builds on previous maintainer needs research to examine funder perspectives - Evidence: "We interviewed maintainers and heard back that yes funding is important but we also need all these other things" #### ⏱️ [05:23](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=323) — [H2] Interview methodology and structure - Key idea: Open-ended questions designed to avoid leading responses - Evidence: "We asked at a very high level what does the funding landscape currently look like" #### ⏱️ [10:45](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=645) — [H1] Geographic funding concentration - Key idea: Funding sources heavily concentrated in US and Europe - Evidence: "I reached out to my contacts in South America, in Africa, in Asia and I asked what is available on your continent? And I didn't get any referrals" #### ⏱️ [15:23](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=923) — [H2] Selection criteria challenges - Key idea: Project selection depends more on relationships than objective metrics - Evidence: "It depends more on the relationships funders and maintainers develop than objective metrics" #### ⏱️ [20:12](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=1212) — [H3] Impact tracking complexity - Key idea: Funders struggle with measuring prevented negative outcomes - Evidence: "We want to improve it to avoid bad outcomes and in the absence of bad outcomes what can we report about" #### ⏱️ [25:30](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=1530) — [H2] Vision and strategy influence - Key idea: Funder strategic direction shapes impact measurement approaches - Evidence: "Vision and strategy of the funder influences how the impact is tracked and reported" #### ⏱️ [30:15](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=1815) — [H2] Operationalizing impact measurement - Key idea: Metrics often systematically undermeasure true impact - Evidence: "The metrics that we want to have are not always easy to capture or available" #### ⏱️ [32:45](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=1965) — [H1] Monthly reporting success pattern - Key idea: Regular monthly summaries create effective tracking and transparency - Evidence: "When the project or the maintainers are asked to write monthly summaries. Here is what we did" #### ⏱️ [35:12](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=2112) — [H2] Cohort funding model benefits - Key idea: Grouping funded projects reduces power differentials and improves communication - Evidence: "To put projects that are being funded into cohorts and they can talks amongst the peers" #### ⏱️ [40:20](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=2420) — [H3] Types of measurable impact - Key idea: Impact includes technical improvements, adoption growth, and innovation - Evidence: "New CI/CD pipeline integrations more automated testing we have reduced time to close pull requests" #### ⏱️ [45:10](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=2710) — [H2] Downstream adoption effects - Key idea: Funding can serve as endorsement driving broader adoption - Evidence: "When a project has a funder, there are users, agencies or governments that see this funding as an endorsement" #### ⏱️ [50:30](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=3030) — [H3] Relationship-based selection fragility - Key idea: Personal relationship dependency makes funding system fragile - Evidence: "It makes funding more difficult to be sustainable because when someone leaves on either side" ## 📚 References - [FOSDEM Presentation Recording](https://fosdem.org) - [CHAOSS Community Website](https://chaoss.community) - [Sustain OSS Events](https://sustainoss.org) - [FLOSS Fund Initiative](https://flossfund.org) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Open source funding research reveals geographic concentration primarily in US and Europe with significant gaps elsewhere - Funder selection processes rely heavily on personal relationships rather than standardized objective metrics - Impact measurement challenges include quantifying prevented negative outcomes and balancing metrics with compelling narratives ## 📰 Newsletter New research from CHAOSS reveals key insights into open source funding dynamics that every maintainer should understand. The study found that funding opportunities are heavily concentrated in the US and Europe, with limited options elsewhere globally. Most importantly for project maintainers: selection often depends more on building relationships with funders than hitting specific metrics. While this might seem unfair, it also suggests that networking and community engagement are crucial skills for sustainability. The research also highlighted promising practices like monthly progress reporting and cohort-based funding models that reduce power imbalances between funders and recipients. Resources: [CHAOSS Community](https://chaoss.community/), [Sustain OSS](https://sustainoss.org/), [FOSDEM Talks](https://fosdem.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Share funding landscape insights at conferences and meetups - Education: Create workshops on funder relationship building for maintainers - Community management: Facilitate introductions between projects and appropriate funders #### OSPO - Strategic Alignment: Map organizational funding goals to available open source funding sources - Community Engagement: Develop relationships with funding organizations in relevant domains - Policy & Governance: Establish criteria for supporting employee open source funding applications #### Community - Maintainers: Document project impact stories alongside technical metrics - Contributors: Support maintainers in grant writing and funding applications - Sponsors: Consider geographic diversity in funding distribution strategies #### WordPress - Community: Connect international WordPress contributors with regional funding opportunities - Core: Document security improvements and prevented vulnerabilities for funding narratives - Meta: Explore cohort-based funding models for major WordPress projects ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Geographic funding concentration creates systemic barriers for non-Western open source contributors - Relationship-based selection criteria favor projects with existing network access over technical merit - Monthly reporting cycles improve both transparency and project outcomes compared to annual reporting - Cohort funding models reduce recipient isolation and improve project success rates ### 📊 Methodology - Qualitative interview study with ~20 funders across different organization types - Workshop validation with interview participants to test findings - Cross-validation with maintainer perspectives from previous research ### ❓ Questions - How can funding systems reduce geographic inequality while maintaining quality standards? - What objective metrics could supplement relationship-based selection without creating bureaucratic barriers? - How might funding approval ratios (typically ~5%) be improved through better matching systems? ### 🔮 Future Research - Quantitative analysis of funding geographic distribution and project outcomes - Longitudinal study of cohort-based vs individual funding models - Development of standardized impact measurement frameworks for funders ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Maintainers should prioritize relationship building alongside technical development - Policy: Geographic funding equity requires deliberate intervention and new funding structures - Education: Grant writing and funder relationship skills should be part of maintainer training - Funding: Monthly reporting and cohort models show promise for improving outcomes ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Grade 12-13 (academic presentation style) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Research methodology slides and structured interview questions shown - Improve: Add funding landscape maps, relationship network diagrams, impact measurement flowcharts #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full video presentation with interactive discussion - Improve: Provide audio-only version and discussion highlights summary #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions of funding types, detailed examples and case studies - Improve: Glossary of funding terms, comparison tables of different funder types #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Interactive workshop format with participant validation - Improve: Hands-on grant writing exercises, funder relationship mapping activities #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Structured methodology, clear research progression, systematic findings - Improve: Decision trees for funding selection, cause-effect diagrams for impact #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Community discussion format, collaborative workshop validation - Improve: Peer networking guides, collaborative funding application frameworks #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Detailed research document for individual review - Improve: Self-assessment tools for funding readiness, individual reflection prompts #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Ecosystem perspective on funding landscape - Improve: Funding lifecycle analogies, sustainable funding ecosystem models ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Video has spoken content with clear verbal transitions - Improve: Provide detailed slide descriptions and structured transcript #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video player controls accessible - Improve: Ensure all shared documents meet accessibility standards #### Contrast and readability - Present: Video presentation slides appear to meet contrast requirements - Improve: Verify all shared documents meet WCAG 2.2 AA standards #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Shared documents should be responsive - Improve: Test document accessibility at 200% zoom #### Media and captions - Present: Video content available with transcript - Improve: Add closed captions and audio descriptions #### Forms and interactions - Present: Research interview forms designed for accessibility - Improve: Ensure all data collection meets accessibility standards ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Acknowledges geographic funding disparities and seeks global perspectives - Improve: Include more non-Western funder perspectives and funding models #### Inclusive language - Present: Uses neutral research language, defines technical terms - Improve: Provide translations of key resources for global community #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Structured presentation format with clear sections - Improve: Provide multiple content formats and processing speeds #### Representation - Present: Research includes diverse funder types and geographic awareness - Improve: Ensure research team diversity reflected in future studies #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful academic tone, acknowledges system limitations - Improve: Include content warnings about funding inequality impacts ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Inductive strength: Good sample size and variety for qualitative research, appropriate generalization to broader funding landscape - Causal reasoning: Clear connections between funder strategies and measurement approaches - Analogical strength: Appropriate comparisons between different funding models and contexts #### Fallacies - Survivorship bias: Sample includes only active funders, may miss failed funding approaches - Hasty generalization: Limited geographic reach in interviews (primarily US/Europe) limits global applicability #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Professional academic research presentation with collaborative discussion elements ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No evidence of denial patterns - Attack: No attacks on research subjects or critics - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender reversal dynamics - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Appropriately neutral academic tone throughout ## 🎯 Conclusion This research provides crucial insights into the often opaque world of open source funding, revealing both systemic challenges and promising practices. The heavy reliance on personal relationships, while creating barriers to entry, also enables trust-based funding that can be more responsive to community needs than purely metrics-driven approaches. For practitioners, the key takeaway is that funding success requires both technical excellence and relationship building skills. Organizations should consider implementing monthly reporting cycles and cohort-based models to improve outcomes and reduce power imbalances. The geographic concentration of funding sources represents a significant equity challenge that requires deliberate intervention to address. Future research should focus on developing more inclusive and sustainable funding mechanisms that can serve the global open source community. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### [H1] Geographic funding concentration limits global participation > [!quote] [CHAOSS Funding Impact Research](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=968ZZyDWcZQ) by [[Garrick Aden-Buie]] via [[CHAOSS Community]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-28. > "All that money is in the US and in Europe." Research reveals systematic exclusion of non-Western contributors from funding opportunities. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=923#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_funding_geography ### [H2] Relationship-based selection creates funding fragility > [!quote] [CHAOSS Funding Impact Research](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=968ZZyDWcZQ) > "It depends more on the relationships funders and maintainers develop than objective metrics." Personal connections drive funding decisions but create institutional vulnerability. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/968ZZyDWcZQ?t=923#H2) #xref ID:rw_funding_relationships --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) #### [Z1] Monthly reporting improves funding transparency - Scope: Applies to grant-based and milestone funding structures - Pointer: 32:45 timestamp discussion - Links: [[Funding-Models]] [[Project-Management]] #### [Z2] Cohort funding reduces power differentials - Scope: Most effective for peer-support funding models - Pointer: 35:12 workshop insights - Links: [[ --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Okay, there we go. [00:04] >> Okay, nice. Yes, I'm happy to facilitate [00:07] Don. Um, so thank you everyone for being [00:10] here and uh Garrick especially for doing [00:13] the last minute presentation um call and [00:16] and accepting to to come and uh discuss [00:19] with us. So we are very um very [00:23] interested in the work that you're doing [00:24] with um Johan and um Kevin. Is it is [00:28] that right? Um and so yeah. [00:34] >> Yeah. Where do you want me to start? At [00:36] the end with what we are finding or at [00:38] the beginning of how we designed the [00:41] this research study and what kind of [00:44] drove us to explore the funding in open [00:48] source. [00:51] >> I would love to hear about the [00:52] motivation first I think. Um but let me [00:55] know if others disagree. [00:57] >> Yeah. So, Johan, Kevin, I we've been [01:01] around open source for several years and [01:06] I know Zirkcon from going to the sustain [01:09] OSS events back when they were being [01:12] hosted. And so, sustainability of open [01:16] source and funding has been something we [01:18] care about. [01:20] And we did a study [01:24] uh that we presented last year at Fazdam [01:27] on what maintainers are currently saying [01:32] they need because we've had this [01:35] conversation in the sustainoss group. [01:38] We've had it across the foundations in [01:42] the open source projects everywhere. way [01:44] of talking about what this is but when [01:46] you look at the academic literature [01:48] it's absent and it was not documented in [01:53] a way that academics can build on it. So [01:56] we went out we interviewed maintainers [01:59] and heard back that yes funding is [02:03] important but we also need all these [02:06] other things. We need to build that [02:08] human infrastructure is what we called [02:10] it. So that we have the people and they [02:13] have the skills and time to focus on the [02:15] things and we we not always need money. [02:18] We also need other things. So that's [02:20] what we found out last year. We [02:23] published that. That's all good. And [02:25] then we wanted to swap onto the other [02:28] side. So that's the starting point of [02:30] the current study that I'm talking about [02:32] today of what does it look like from the [02:36] funer perspective. We wanted to [02:37] understand what is it that they are [02:40] looking for when selecting. I'll show [02:44] you our research um the interview [02:47] questions actually because that is the [02:51] instrument that we used and [02:56] Here [03:00] I'm sharing my screen so you can see [03:02] this. So you know exactly what we asked [03:05] the the funders. [03:09] Um I got an safety notification. Is [03:12] sharing working for you all? [03:15] >> Yes. [03:16] >> Excellent. [03:20] So, [03:21] of course, we wanted to know first who [03:24] they are so we can capture the different [03:26] nuances and context that they're coming [03:28] from. Um, we asked at a very high level [03:33] what does the funding landscape [03:35] currently look like because we wanted to [03:36] map out what um [03:41] is available to maintainers to open [03:43] source projects. And one of the insights [03:45] that I found really interesting is there [03:49] is funding available in the US in Europe [03:53] but then outside of that it becomes very [03:55] sparse. We didn't find a lot of or any [04:00] funders to talk to outside of the US and [04:05] uh Europe. I reached out to my contacts [04:08] in South America, in Africa, in Asia and [04:12] I asked what is available on your [04:14] continent? What do you know of? And I [04:18] didn't get any referrals. I didn't get [04:19] any connections because they said, you [04:22] know, all that money is in the US and in [04:24] Europe. So that is something I found [04:27] really interesting. And if you know of [04:30] of funding sources that are available, I [04:33] I think there are [04:35] starting to to be a push for it, but [04:38] it's really not established. Um so or or [04:43] if it is established, it's not being [04:46] perceived or known even to the people [04:48] who live on those continents. So that is [04:51] a gap that I found really interesting. [04:54] Then we have we asked about selection. [04:57] So, how do you decide which open source [05:00] projects to fund? And could you expand [05:03] on that selection criteria you have? [05:05] Which metrics or signals, if any, are [05:08] using to in the selection process? [05:10] Because we wanted to know from a [05:12] maintainer perspective, what could the [05:15] maintainers, the projects do to be [05:18] noticed to be selected for funding? [05:22] And then on the and I'll talk about what [05:25] we found here because [05:28] um the short of it is it depends more on [05:33] the relationships funders and [05:35] maintainers develop than objective [05:38] metrics. [05:40] Um that is also something that I found [05:43] really interesting and it's more of a [05:46] finger in the air uh approach that many [05:49] funders are currently taking. [05:52] Um impact we have we wanted to know okay [05:56] so funders are giving money or resources [06:02] or support [06:05] um and we talked to many different [06:07] funding um we had a very loose [06:11] definition anyone who is supporting open [06:14] source whether um it is some [06:18] organization like the sovereign tech [06:20] agency [06:22] Alpha Omega. We talked with foundations [06:26] like Eclipse. [06:28] Um we also in the study still went back [06:33] to some maintainers and said, "Hey, [06:35] we've heard from funders. Can you help [06:38] match this? Is this your experience?" [06:40] Also [06:43] uh so when that funding is made the [06:45] funders usually have a source of that [06:49] funding and they need to report up and [06:52] secure those funds again. And so how do [06:55] you track impact? How do you justify [06:58] getting that funding again to give to [07:01] open source? So how do you track that? [07:03] What metrics do you use and how do you [07:05] report that? So that's on that impact. [07:08] And then in that already we had lots of [07:12] conversations and we didn't have time to [07:14] ask many more questions. So we just [07:16] asked if we had any blind spots, if [07:19] there's anything else that we didn't [07:20] cover that we needed to know about and [07:25] uh if there was anything that we could [07:28] produce out of the research that funders [07:30] would find helpful and if they can make [07:32] any new introduction. So, so that's the [07:37] research instrument, the interview [07:39] protocol that we used. And I'm I'm going [07:42] to pause here. I I really enjoy [07:45] interactive conversations more so than [07:47] me talking to a webcam. So, I'm going to [07:51] pause here and give you all a chance to [07:54] ask questions, [07:56] comment on what you're seeing, whatever [07:59] comes to mind. [08:05] Thank you, Garrick. I very much [08:07] appreciate the length of the questions [08:08] because that's what I found as well is [08:11] that we would put together 10 15 [08:13] questions and then would maybe get to [08:15] five um properly and of course we don't [08:19] want to take too much time of their [08:21] daily time. So, I really appreciate how [08:23] it's I think focusing on the things that [08:25] you really want to get get from and um [08:28] they seem to evade but as but focused [08:31] enough so that people can answer. Um I'm [08:33] really interested in the results. [08:37] >> Yeah, thank you Adrian. And when you say [08:42] they're vague in academic terms, when I [08:46] think about creating an interview [08:48] protocol, [08:50] I want to avoid leading questions and I [08:52] want to keep them open where I ask, hey, [08:55] what comes to mind when I say this? And [08:59] then, can you give examples? Can you [09:01] talk about this? so that I don't get a [09:06] specific answer I'm expecting, but I'm [09:08] just opening up the conversation. And so [09:10] when it comes across as vague, it's [09:13] really because it's designed to be an [09:15] open question, [09:20] Alexand. [09:21] >> Uh yes. Uh yeah, first thanks thanks for [09:24] these insights. I'm also really [09:27] interested in the results. uh when you [09:30] talked about um basically the countries [09:33] or regions which uh provide funding uh [09:37] opportunities for maintainers um I [09:39] thought about uh one initiative which I [09:43] stepped over which is called floss fund [09:46] maybe you have heard about it or [09:48] probably you have heard about it and now [09:50] I I quickly opened it and uh it's [09:53] somehow uh related to India so it says [09:57] something like started in 2024 at Seruda [10:02] Floss Fun blah blah blah. So apparently [10:04] uh there is an initiative [10:07] um also outside uh Europe and the US [10:10] which came into my mind. So maybe that's [10:13] uh kind of helpful for your for your uh [10:16] data collection. [10:18] Yeah, thank you for bringing up floss [10:21] fund and [10:24] the the [10:27] I think there is a uh perception um that [10:33] we need to promote these initiatives um [10:36] more. So this one is started [10:39] a little over a year ago and we ran [10:42] these interviews [10:44] around that time. So I don't there was [10:47] enough time to [10:48] >> y [10:49] >> really be known at that time. [10:51] >> Yeah. [10:52] >> Yeah. [10:56] >> Paul [10:59] um yeah I think the questions are great [11:01] from my perspective. I think um I might [11:04] suggest one though that I think could [11:07] help flesh out uh the context and [11:11] selection a little bit and also as [11:13] bearing on some level for impact. Um [11:16] because we sometimes I think tend to [11:19] treat funding as a panacea as you know [11:23] just a kind of uh a very general thing [11:26] but um different funders have different [11:29] sort of if you like strategic goals or [11:32] things they want to set out to do um be [11:35] it you know improve resilience or cyber [11:37] security and um or you know be more [11:40] oriented to community funding and [11:43] certainly from the perspective of SDA [11:44] we've had occasions when we funding [11:48] different things and so the measurement [11:50] of the impact is obviously different, [11:51] right? Um, and maybe it's worth [11:55] considering a question at the kind of [11:58] getting to know the participant uh [12:00] section around like what is the overall [12:03] goal of your organization or your [12:06] funding and you'll probably end up with [12:08] I imagine like some [12:11] very broadly sketched things about like [12:12] strengthening the ecosystem um or [12:15] something like that but perhaps the [12:18] space to just kind of drill that down a [12:20] little bit and get a bit more specific [12:22] could help. [12:23] >> Yeah. And from running these interviews, [12:28] everyone talks about their objectives [12:31] and their goals. Whether it is in the [12:34] context or no later than by the time we [12:37] talk about selecting, [12:40] there's a clarification that happens. We [12:42] are selecting because this is what we [12:45] want to do and achieve. So yes [12:48] absolutely that is an important [12:50] consideration and in the interview data [12:52] we have captured that uh even without [12:56] having a dedicated question for it which [12:59] is always a balance um how many [13:01] questions do you put in interview [13:04] protocol and then does it start getting [13:07] repetitive. So good good call out that [13:11] the objectives [13:13] matter and they matter so much that they [13:16] come out in the way the questions are [13:18] answered anyway. [13:23] So I I'm just sharing my experience here [13:27] so that hopefully this helps someone if [13:29] if you want to do something similar in [13:32] the future or [13:34] um so that you understand how we arrived [13:36] at [13:38] our results. So [13:41] here here's where we went next. We we [13:43] did about 20 interviews or so and [13:50] there what one of the things that we [13:52] heard from our interview participants is [13:57] that there is not a lot of agreement [14:00] across the industry across the different [14:04] funders on how to select how to measure [14:08] that. There are some issues around the [14:11] popular and most widely used than known [14:14] projects [14:15] capture the funding whereas lesser known [14:17] ones are are [14:21] um having a harder time to attract [14:24] support. Um and so we heard that there [14:28] is a need for coordination, more [14:30] coordination, more collaboration between [14:32] the funders and for [14:37] for to foster that we invited our [14:40] interview participants to a workshop at [14:43] FOSDM [14:44] and we also invited a few others that [14:48] are in this space that we didn't get to [14:50] interview. [14:52] And then the second reason we brought [14:54] everyone together to talk about our [14:57] findings is from a research perspective [14:59] to validate that what we are [15:03] synthesizing from the interviews what we [15:05] are seeing makes sense that it holds up [15:08] to the experience and also to start a [15:11] conversation around [15:13] because there is so much variability [15:16] just to have a conversation. So we [15:18] created this workshop brief [15:22] and in our analysis we focused on impact [15:27] tracking impact reporting the that piece [15:31] of our interviews. So we captured a lot [15:34] of things but to keep the conversation [15:37] focused we're really focusing on the [15:39] funding impact and I want to highlight a [15:43] few themes. Quick shout out to our [15:46] sponsors. Rice is where Johan works. [15:49] Kraton is where Kevin works and Betrogia [15:51] is where I worked. And then here's what [15:54] we found. [15:56] So for [15:59] the vision and strategy of the funer [16:03] that this is what Paul was uh asking [16:06] about. This is so important on what the [16:11] strategic direction is that it [16:13] influences how the impact is tracked and [16:20] reported because that shapes the lens [16:23] that funders are looking through and [16:25] what they're trying to accomplish. [16:31] And so when it comes to the impact logic [16:35] is what we call it. It is taking that [16:37] vision and strategy and creating a frame [16:42] around it on these are the kinds of [16:47] things that we are [16:50] affecting. So if it is a organization [16:53] that focuses on improving security, [16:56] they would be looking at metrics or [17:00] stories around [17:03] finding vulnerabilities, getting them [17:06] closed, how long it takes, avoiding [17:09] disastrous outcomes and so on and so [17:12] forth or refactoring, simplifying [17:14] architecture. [17:15] Uh if the story is around we want to [17:20] secure our foundation then it is things [17:24] about how do we find what is in our [17:28] foundation? How do we make sure we [17:30] capture broad categories? [17:33] And a lot of it boils down to stories [17:37] because the [17:39] um whatever metrics or numbers that we [17:43] can talk about they don't tell a [17:47] compelling enough story. oftent times [17:49] when especially when it's reported out [17:51] to those who control the purse strings [17:54] it is the stories the emotional side to [17:58] this that actually allows for funding to [18:01] continue to flow. [18:06] Um we also found this theory of change [18:11] and one of the problems is we want to [18:16] improve it to avoid bad outcomes and in [18:20] the absence of bad outcomes what can we [18:22] report about. Um so that is a challenge [18:26] that we heard about time and time again. [18:31] So, so that is the the setup. When it [18:33] then comes down to operationalizing [18:36] the impact, how do you break it down [18:38] into something that you can put a number [18:41] to and that you can measure? [18:45] Uh it is going towards the the goal. [18:52] Um [18:53] easy to justify, [18:56] relatively straightforward. [18:58] Uh but there there are limitations for [19:01] for this because the those metrics are [19:04] not always that the metrics that we want [19:06] to have are not always easy to capture [19:09] or available. [19:13] Um and so that makes it often [19:18] systematically undermeasured. [19:21] Um, as a result of that difficulty, [19:27] we have already talked about uh things [19:30] that didn't go wrong. Being able to [19:32] measure something that didn't happen is [19:35] hard. [19:37] Uh, and that so that's a challenge. Not [19:39] that we have a solution to this, but we [19:41] are just capturing this as a challenge. [19:45] And then considering funding structures, [19:49] this is also where depending on [19:54] how the support is given, whether it's a [19:57] grant, a contract, a stipen, whether it [20:00] has milestones or not, whether it's work [20:02] for hire, the it builds in reporting [20:08] cycles. [20:09] And one of the things that I [20:14] thought seemed to work really well and [20:17] I've heard a few times is when the [20:21] project or the maintainers are asked to [20:24] write monthly summaries. Here is what we [20:27] did. Here's what the funding allowed us [20:28] to do. Here is the improvements that we [20:31] made. And so that creates a track record [20:37] that we can point back to. And then in a [20:40] annual or bannual or whatever reporting [20:43] cycle a bigger report can be assembled [20:46] from those smaller monthly [20:48] reports. It also creates check-in points [20:52] and transparency. [20:57] talking about about that one. There's [21:00] also something we heard about with [21:02] regards to the relationship between [21:06] the one who gives the money and the one [21:08] who receives the money. [21:11] And [21:14] it can [21:16] that there can be an effect where the [21:20] projects or maintainers that receive [21:22] funding [21:24] are starting to feel pressure because [21:26] they received funding. And then if they [21:28] perceive not meeting deadlines, not [21:31] being able to do the things that they [21:33] wanted to do because life happens, [21:35] whatever, then they become silent. And [21:39] so to [21:42] foster a continuous flow of information, [21:45] one thing that [21:47] seems promising is to put projects that [21:52] are being funded into cohorts and they [21:55] can talks amongst the peers and then the [21:58] funer just based on that chatter and the [22:01] check-ins where the peers are more [22:03] likely to ask each other for advice or [22:06] help than go to the perceived [22:10] uh overlord where the power differential [22:12] is at least perceived. [22:15] Um it it allows to capture misalignments [22:20] or issues earlier and to respond faster. [22:24] So that is something I found interesting [22:26] to um group [22:30] the u recipients into cohorts. [22:35] When we talk about types of impact this [22:39] is how the projects were improved [22:43] whether it is we have new CI/CD pipeline [22:47] integrations more automated testing we [22:50] have uh reduced time to close pull [22:54] requests [22:56] um or we are [23:00] um reducing the backlog. We bringing [23:03] more people in. we are able to implement [23:06] new features [23:09] whatever it is. So that [23:12] that is um also [23:16] um [23:20] adoption was another type of impact that [23:23] we heard about where some projects say [23:27] we are more widely used or funders said [23:31] one of the things I want to have is [23:34] because we fund projects and they [23:37] improve that they also become more [23:39] widely used and have a more positive [23:42] impact in the ecosystem because we want [23:44] to leverage where we spend the money on [23:47] projects. We want to impact not just [23:50] current users but also more users and [23:53] grow that adoption. [23:58] Um that's this point about downstream [24:01] use and adoption [24:04] innovation and public good. There are [24:06] also funders who are not just about [24:09] maintenance funding [24:11] which is a fairly new concept from what [24:13] we hear. Uh traditionally there was more [24:17] funding available for developing new [24:20] features for fixing things that have had [24:24] gone wrong and then in the last years [24:29] maintain maintenance funding has become [24:32] available and that's still a rather new [24:35] thing. creating things, driving [24:38] innovation, doing something for the [24:40] public good are also impacts that [24:44] um that funders care about. [24:49] U measurement approach [24:52] um some of you have written a fantastic [24:56] paper what was it now two years ago [24:59] about quantitive qualitative and how to [25:01] approach that. So we heard many of those [25:04] themes again here. [25:08] Uh so I I don't want to talk too much [25:11] about that since I [25:15] you already have fantastic resource on [25:17] that. [25:19] Um I don't think we had anything new or [25:23] in um [25:25] something surprising in here that I want [25:28] to highlight the impact reporting though [25:34] this is where we asked okay so how do [25:38] you report out and a lot of the funders [25:42] have annual reports that they put out [25:46] and that helps secure additional [25:48] funding. [25:49] or show the impact that the funders had. [25:53] Uh in the reporting, [25:57] some metrics are important, but really [26:00] that narrative and the key message and [26:03] tying it together into here's what we [26:06] set out as a funding agency to do and [26:09] these are all the things that we have [26:11] done and this is the positive impact [26:13] that we have and the larger picture how [26:15] that affects the ecosystem. Those are [26:19] good stories to tell but really [26:21] difficult to put into numbers. And then [26:24] also the target audience is often [26:28] considered because if it is a policy [26:33] maker government, they need to hear [26:35] different things than if it is private [26:38] corporate [26:40] um investors who care more about [26:44] securing the foundation of their own [26:47] esbomb. Whereas the governments they [26:50] care more about the public good and [26:52] innovation and [26:54] driving the economy forward as a whole. [26:59] So that is [27:02] the summary of the things that we found [27:07] in the interviews. [27:09] um one of the [27:12] so I I can pause here because I then [27:16] have also after the workshop we had some [27:18] reflections that we shared at Fosdom [27:20] that I can talk about but I wanted to [27:22] pause here and now that we've gone [27:24] through this impact brief which I'm also [27:28] happy to share with you all if you're [27:30] interested [27:37] >> I I might jump in quickly to ask a [27:40] question. Um maybe maybe I I didn't hear [27:44] it exactly but you had this um paragraph [27:47] about down downstream impact or [27:49] something like that. I think section [27:51] four or something. Um could you quickly [27:55] summarize again because I didn't get [27:56] that point completely. Um what did the [27:58] people talk about um the impact of [28:02] basically improvements or funding um [28:06] when it comes to downstream effects um [28:10] kind of rippling through the ecosystem [28:13] >> uh this 4.3 this section [28:17] >> so this is in the section of types of [28:21] impact [28:22] >> and we had funders that wanted to [28:28] make a positive impact in a certain [28:31] domain or field or use cases [28:35] and by so so for example I I'll just [28:39] make this up if the goal was to [28:43] improve [28:46] for [28:48] reporters that they can securely do [28:52] reporting on the ground in situations [28:56] where [28:57] the conversations and communication [29:01] needs to be secured. If if that is the [29:03] context and [29:06] then the funer goes and funds open [29:08] source projects because they believe [29:11] these are the technologies that [29:13] reporters need in crisis environments [29:18] where they are being prosecuted whatever [29:20] and it keeps them safe. then funding the [29:24] open source project is all good and well [29:26] but they want to see that reporters [29:28] actually take up the tools and start [29:31] using them because that is the ultimate [29:34] outcome that they are going for. The [29:36] technology is just the means [29:38] >> to an end. [29:40] >> Okay, [29:42] thank you. [29:43] >> Yeah, you're welcome. [29:49] So th this was especially interesting [29:52] for [29:53] technology for good. the digital public [29:56] goods um alliance associated kind of [30:01] funding mechanisms where we are creating [30:04] technology not just [30:08] to to improve the technology but to [30:10] drive social impact. [30:22] Uh Circon is asking does the funding [30:24] increase the adoption in some cases [30:28] because a project received funding. [30:32] Now there are agencies, there are [30:35] governments, there are [30:38] >> I I was trying to clarify what [30:40] Alexandros was uh asking. Let's say that [30:44] uh I think that was one of the key [30:46] points u metrics that uh that you are [30:50] interested in. So I was just trying to [30:51] reply to Alexandra H but this adoption [30:55] part is uh I think critical for all of [30:57] us right that uh this we were just [31:00] discussing the practitioners guide as [31:01] well that over over there also that we [31:05] are wondering whether we can have a [31:07] metric for adoption uh I think the best [31:10] one that we have ecosystems for instance [31:12] is doing a good job over there uh do you [31:15] have any um uh do you have any let's say [31:18] methods or recommendations [31:20] to measure that adoption. Is there any [31:24] conversation about that? [31:28] >> Um, a lot of it is [31:32] because the maintainers know who is [31:37] taking on a project if they hear about [31:39] it, especially if there is a [31:42] like a migration project and people come [31:45] and ask for help. Um so it's anecdotal. [31:49] I know there is scarf which is a [31:53] technical solution to measure downloads [31:57] and can be embedded in the software to [31:59] also have [32:02] metrics on actual usage [32:06] but that's that's about the extent of [32:08] it. [32:15] But to to build on on that, does funding [32:18] increase adoption? Yes. When a project [32:21] has a funer, there are users, agencies [32:26] or um governments that see this funding [32:29] as an endorsement and now they are able [32:33] to justify to their stakeholders that [32:35] yes, we can build on this because it is [32:38] recognized as a good solution and has [32:42] received funding from whatever funding [32:44] agency. [32:46] Um, so it it can kickstart an adoption [32:50] cycle or sometimes we have open- source [32:54] technologies that are developed in one [32:55] context by one country by one [32:58] municipality [33:00] and [33:02] building a coalition of others that come [33:05] in and share. A funer can help [33:08] facilitate that process also. That's [33:10] also something we have seen. [33:16] G, I do have a question, but I was [33:18] wondering if it's maybe better to pose [33:20] it at the end because I think it's a [33:22] general question. Um, or I was wondering [33:25] if if there's anything else you wanted [33:27] to present. [33:29] >> Um, I'm happy to stop at any time. Um [33:33] I'm also happy to share [33:35] um the early insights the kind of what [33:40] we learned from the workshop [33:42] but I think this conversation is really [33:45] good and helpful already and if there [33:47] are other agenda items I'm happy to just [33:50] call it good because you can watch this [33:51] also on the fosum [33:54] recording. [33:55] >> We don't really have any agenda items [33:57] but I can I can tell you my question and [33:59] then you can decide whether now is the [34:00] good time to answer it. I was wondering [34:02] if um any of the funders that you [34:05] interviewed had experience funding [34:08] things other than open source. So maybe [34:10] research institutions [34:12] um I don't know maybe individuals but [34:15] not in this opensource project sense and [34:18] whether they they reflected on some of [34:21] the differences that there is in funding [34:24] open source versus I don't know maybe [34:26] the bigger funds or when it's and it's [34:28] not as distributed as here. Um [34:33] yeah but if if not then maybe the these [34:37] people were experts in open source and [34:39] didn't do funding. uh in other domains. [34:42] >> Yeah. So we we heard about funding being [34:46] available for open source from general [34:49] funders like uh [34:54] libraries or science funders that put in [34:58] open source as a requirement or they [35:01] fund a certain open source tool because [35:03] it helps several other of their projects [35:06] engagements. So we heard about those [35:08] opportunities but they are not the focus [35:12] that we had and we did not specifically [35:15] interview those [35:18] I want to call them adjacent funders [35:20] that are open source adjacent but [35:22] they're not dedicated to open source. So [35:24] our interview partners were dedicated or [35:29] had a specific branch focused on open [35:32] source and we only asked about that. [35:35] >> Okay. Thank you. [35:41] >> Yeah, [35:43] happy to chat more. [35:46] >> I also know we like to end early and we [35:48] only have 10 minutes left. [35:54] >> Does anyone have any other questions or [35:56] discussion points for Garrick? [36:00] I would add if you could uh if you want [36:02] to drop a few links uh like the the [36:06] document that you put in the chat uh [36:07] it's not a link so I can't put it in the [36:09] notes but maybe if you could drop a few [36:11] links in the notes we already linked to [36:13] your posam talk but that would be that [36:15] would be helpful [36:17] >> okay yeah I will [36:20] make the document available as a Google [36:25] um drive link Perfect. [36:30] Thank you so much. [36:34] >> I did also have a couple of reminders. [36:36] Um, if you think of any more questions [36:38] for Gay, we still have time, so we can [36:40] come back to that. Um, but we have a [36:42] couple of CFPs that are open. So, the [36:45] Apache Software Foundation's Community [36:47] Over Code, which is going to be in [36:48] October in Glasgow, Scotland. The CFP [36:51] deadline is March 20th. So, that's uh [36:54] coming up in a couple of weeks. [36:56] uh All Things Open, which is in Raleigh [36:58] in October. The CFP deadline is March [37:01] 31st. So, I would encourage you if [37:03] you're interested in attending either of [37:05] those events to um submit into the call [37:08] for proposals. And I don't know if [37:10] anybody else has any reminders, other [37:12] open CFPs, interesting events coming up. [37:22] Okay. [37:24] Anybody think of any final questions for [37:25] Garch? [37:30] >> Maybe just on when you're planning to [37:32] publish Gagor. Is is this going to be a [37:34] scientific article? [37:37] >> Yes, [37:38] >> we are going to [37:40] um I think the submission deadline is [37:45] here end of March. [37:47] So it will be published in a scientific [37:52] venue. [37:53] Um I don't remember what the timeline is [37:56] when it would be finally published but [37:59] we're working on it. [38:01] >> Okay. Nice. Oh and actually another [38:03] thing that came to mind is you you I [38:06] think you said that when they're [38:07] selecting open source projects many [38:09] times it actually depends on the [38:12] relationship that they have with the uh [38:14] maintainers um or the relationships they [38:17] had beforehand with the maintainers um [38:19] to matter more rather than the metrics. [38:22] And I was wondering if the funders [38:24] reflected on whether that's a good or [38:25] bad thing or whether they would want to [38:27] change that or just they don't know how [38:29] to change that. [38:31] >> Yeah, that was [38:35] so that didn't really come out in the [38:37] interviews. That was something we [38:38] learned during the workshop when we were [38:41] all sitting together and in the [38:44] conversation of examples. It just like, [38:47] oh, there's a pattern that we have [38:52] personal relationships [38:54] and [38:56] it makes funding more difficult to be [39:01] sustainable because when someone leaves [39:06] on either side whether within the funer [39:09] and they had all the personal [39:10] relationships and contact and they knew [39:12] who to talk to etc. [39:14] uh even if they leave behind the contact [39:16] list those personal relationships need [39:19] to be established again or if someone in [39:21] uh in the projects leaves so it is that [39:25] that was the sense that I got from the [39:27] conversation [39:29] it makes the system as it is right now [39:32] fragile [39:34] >> and is there a way to change it [39:38] we didn't have a solution on hand it is [39:41] something that we need to think about [39:43] and how can it be done differently? [39:49] >> Yeah. And I'm guessing there's also this [39:51] aspect of if they if they maybe had [39:54] enough um [39:58] participants who are applying um and [40:00] then maybe then the the metric site can [40:03] come come out and so that there if [40:05] there's a 100 applications to go through [40:07] then the metrics would come forward. [40:09] Maybe it's the case that since there's [40:11] this mismatch between people who need [40:14] the funding not finding these funders, [40:17] then it kind of then is um left to those [40:20] who who know about it and have the [40:22] relationships with the funders. [40:24] >> Yeah. Yeah. There there's a couple [40:27] dynamics [40:29] um at play that we can talk about. One [40:31] is the amount of effort that is required [40:34] to apply for funding where maintainers [40:37] say, "Hey, I'm I'm just not even going [40:39] to bother." So unless they already have [40:41] a personal relationship, [40:43] some will not apply to a program that [40:46] tries to be as objective as possible. So [40:50] what that then incentivizes is those who [40:53] apply for it. They have a grant writer [40:56] or someone who is really dedicated to [41:00] going after this funding, but they may [41:02] not be the ones who actually do the [41:04] work, who benefit the open source [41:07] projects and their work on securing the [41:10] funding [41:12] evaporates without impacting the open [41:15] source that actually needed the funding [41:17] to begin with. So those are concerns and [41:23] why [41:24] these personal trust relationships right [41:27] now are so important or seen as [41:30] important. [41:32] Like I said, I don't have a good [41:33] solution for it. [41:37] It's okay. Thank you, Gar. Thank you so [41:40] much for the talk. If Okay, Cirin, go [41:43] ahead. [41:44] Yeah, one one last thing that I could uh [41:48] mention is that it would be interesting [41:50] to know what is the for instance uh [41:52] approved rejected uh ratio let's say how [41:55] many people uh submit to the fund and [41:58] how many of them are being approved [42:00] let's say um the ratio is usually was [42:04] very low for instance for for the funds [42:06] that I was uh that when I was chatting [42:08] let's say for I think open technology [42:10] fund it was like 5% [42:12] um [42:14] uh invest in infrastructure I think [42:17] similar ratio etc. Do you know anything [42:19] about that or do you collect that kind [42:20] of information? That would be [42:22] interesting to know. [42:24] >> I agree. It's would be very interesting [42:26] to know. [42:28] >> Um but it was not focus of our study and [42:31] we did not ask about it. [42:33] >> All right. Yeah. Yep. [42:38] >> Okay. Nice. Thank you so much, G. Um so [42:43] we will meet in two weeks time. I'm [42:46] contacting Amy Odono from Nominette and [42:48] hoping that um she she can present for [42:51] us. Um but if not, we'll be in touch um [42:53] and figure out what the agenda is for [42:55] for the next meeting. [42:58] >> Thank you so much everyone. [43:00] >> Yep. Thank you, G. Cheers. [43:02] >> Thank you. [43:02] >> Thanks for having me. Have a good day. [43:05] >> You too.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, Feb 25, 2026.md|CHAOSS Funding Impact WG, Feb 25, 2026 by YouTube]] ## Highlights - >> Yeah. Where do you want me to start? At the end with what we are finding or at the beginning of how we designed the this research study and what kind of drove us to explore the funding in open source. >> I would love to hear about the motivation first I think. Um but let me know if others disagree. >> Yeah. So, Johan, Kevin, I we've been ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb4nz4kak2d7q0d54wn4fbn)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - they need because we've had this conversation in the sustainoss group. We've had it across the foundations in the open source projects everywhere. way of talking about what this is but when you look at the academic literature it's absent and it was not documented in a way that academics can build on it. So we went out we interviewed maintainers and heard back that yes funding is ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb4nz4tny7zb7968jwzmars)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - projects to fund? And could you expand on that selection criteria you have? Which metrics or signals, if any, are using to in the selection process? Because we wanted to know from a maintainer perspective, what could the maintainers, the projects do to be noticed to be selected for funding? And then on the and I'll talk about what we found here because um the short of it is it depends more on ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb4nz56cba26x7ec5410sdz)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - the relationships funders and maintainers develop than objective metrics. Um that is also something that I found really interesting and it's more of a finger in the air uh approach that many funders are currently taking. Um impact we have we wanted to know okay so funders are giving money or resources ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb4nz5pqwgfx10ctnmhbr1z)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - open source? So how do you track that? What metrics do you use and how do you report that? So that's on that impact. And then in that already we had lots of conversations and we didn't have time to ask many more questions. So we just asked if we had any blind spots, if there's anything else that we didn't cover that we needed to know about and uh if there was anything that we could produce out of the research that funders ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb4nz69hvd9w2824p72bhna)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - across the industry across the different funders on how to select how to measure that. There are some issues around the popular and most widely used than known projects capture the funding whereas lesser known ones are are um having a harder time to attract support. Um and so we heard that there is a need for coordination, more ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpb4nz7w094a46sz02cvzr7n)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted