Yes, we did a round through https://www.coreinfrastructure.org/ ...
-
-
(yet, I think we still talk about OpenSSL needing more investment...)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
(maybe it's more than funding that's needed?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Funding only works if there are knowledgeable, engaged developers working on the project already. During CII discussions we found a number of fundamentally important projects (I remember zlib, I'm sure there are others) who are lacking even that.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @realkpfleming @mjasay and
So, cultivating a community of practice around a software package might be part of the investment needed!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @_msw_ @realkpfleming and
Interesting idea would be to found a non-profit with dev employees paid to target projects full time. That solves the need for already engaged devs and OSS groups not set up to accept funds directly. A competent full time dev should be productive relatively quickly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paulwberg @_msw_ and
If OSS infrastructure is primarily funded as charitable by large technology companies, that infrastructure will come to reflect the priorities of those companies. (No money for self hosting options, etc.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pwramsey @paulwberg and
I agree. Whether it is philanthropy or software supply chain upkeep, if we do not attract a more diverse set of individuals and stakeholders to communities that form around
#OpenSource, the priorities of "those that show up" will take the project in the direction best for them.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is always true, as none of us, individual or corporate, write software for no self interest. But even if the overall direction isn't aligned perfectly, stability and security is a common ground that just having devs doing anything active fosters.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paulwberg @_msw_ and
As an individual I have very little in common with Amazon. But I'd be happy for them to dump labor into GCC for instance even if it was to "cloudify" it. To be successful at that they need stability which means squashing bugs and decoupling complex components. Thats good for all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Supply chains are complex. I don't see customer value in "cloudify"ing GCC. But I see value (both for Amazon and it's customers) in GCC reliably produce fast code for Intel, AMD, and Arm processors. Suppliers are best situated to invest appropriately (as experts on their ISA) 1/2
-
-
Replying to @_msw_ @paulwberg and
Sometimes it is just a matter of making it clear that it is a necessary investment when buying product from a supplier... 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.