You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think that we should discuss these ambiguities and have community-level guidelines for some of them. Here are a few questions that I think are unresolved:
If an organization wishes to apply for funding "as the Jupyter project", do they need to follow any particular process?
How do we define if funding is meant "for the Jupyter Project", vs. "for a project that happens to involve Jupyter development"?
Do we require that community members notify the broader community and invite participation before pursuing these kinds of funding opportunities?
Do we differentiate between the sub-communities within Jupyter? (e.g., JupyterHub and JupyterLab)
Ultimately I think that there are two important things that we should keep in mind:
Access to funding opportunities should be managed in an equitable and participatory way, so that some in the community are not excluded from opportunities just because they didn't notice them, or weren't informed.
Applications to funding will benefit from having input from a broad range of perspectives from the community. Both in making the application itself more competitive, and in ensuring that its deliverables represent the needs of the community.
I think that it is too late for this to be resolved for the current EOSS round, but flagging these issues for future discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In a recent community forum thread, it became clear that several members across the Jupyter community were planning on applying for an EOSS grant. There wasn't a lot of community-wide coordination for this, and as a result there are a few ambiguities that surfaced at the last second. For example, the JupyterHub community discussed this in their team meeting and team compass, and the accessibility working group discussed this in an issue, but these efforts weren't obvious to the broader community.
I think that we should discuss these ambiguities and have community-level guidelines for some of them. Here are a few questions that I think are unresolved:
Ultimately I think that there are two important things that we should keep in mind:
I think that it is too late for this to be resolved for the current EOSS round, but flagging these issues for future discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: