On 2019-09-07 11:49:57 +0200 (+0200), Antonio Ojea wrote: [...]
I think that the reality is that not everybody can "chose" his job.
That's a fair point. I've had the luxury of turning down much higher-paying jobs to accept one at a non-profit organization aligned with my ideals. I definitely understand that not everyone can afford to do that. On the other hand, I wonder how many folks who work on OpenStack because their employer tells them they have to, not because they're inspired by the project's goals, are compelled (through the sense of community Chris mentioned in his post) to spend extra unpaid time helping with commons tasks and assisting others... to the point that they're burned out on these activities and decide to go work on something else instead. I don't doubt that there are at least some, but perhaps no more than those who took their jobs because they wanted to help the cause. I do feel for the part-time/volunteer contributors in our community, particularly since I've spent much of my life as a part-time/volunteer contributor in a number of other free/libre open-source communities myself. I continue trying to find ways to make such "casual" contribution easier, and to see it eventually play a much more influential role in the future of OpenStack. On the other hand, OpenStack is *very* large (the third-most-active open-source project of all time, depending on how you measure that), and whether we like it or not, full-time contributors are responsible for the bulk of what we've built so far. That reality creates processes and bureaucratic structure to streamline efficiency for high-volume contribution, with a trade-off of making "casual" contribution more challenging.
Maybe the foundation can start to employ people to take care of the projects with the money received from the sponsors, I'm sure that a lot of folks will step in, not having to take time from his family life and able to dedicate their full time to the project.
The OSF *does* employ people to help take care of projects with the money received from corporate memberships. If you think the proportion of its funds spent on staff to handle project commons tasks which otherwise go untended is insufficient, please find time to discuss it with your elected Individual Member representatives on the board of directors and convince them to argue for a different balance in the OSF budget. The total budget of the OSF could, however, be compared to that of one small/medium-sized department at a typical member company, so it lacks the capacity to do much on its own and the staff dedicated to this are already spread quite thin as a result. -- Jeremy Stanley