WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:13.400 Hi everybody. Welcome to the new folks in the room. So really, really pleased to welcome 00:13.400 --> 00:23.200 back Georg Kevin and Johan, who presented last year and are back today to present on early 00:23.200 --> 00:26.760 insights in the learning force and funders. And when you start to be helpful, you just 00:26.760 --> 00:30.760 explain the format when you do questions. And otherwise, take it away. 00:30.760 --> 00:36.600 Awesome. Thank you for the introduction. Hi everyone. Thank you for having us back here. 00:36.600 --> 00:43.280 It was so much fun last year. When we shared our research findings that we decided this 00:43.280 --> 00:48.720 gives us energy to do another research project. And we are back here to share again 00:48.720 --> 00:57.760 what we learned. Last year, what we left was with the question about the funders that 00:57.760 --> 01:05.520 are working in funding open source and the project and that intersection specifically. And so 01:05.520 --> 01:14.280 we really wanted to hear from the funders and dig in on how they are doing their decisions 01:14.280 --> 01:22.480 on what to fund, how do they evaluate that, how do they report on the impact. And we used 01:22.480 --> 01:29.400 that because we also want to then help bridge that with the open source communities and 01:29.400 --> 01:35.480 project, when they understand how funding works, then they can better plug into that funding. 01:35.560 --> 01:45.960 So that's kind of the premise that we started with. And we did a run of interviews and we 01:45.960 --> 01:53.720 are sharing some insights from that. And we are also, we also hosted a workshop this morning 01:53.720 --> 01:59.080 where we brought together several funders from the open source space and already discussed 01:59.160 --> 02:07.800 our research findings. And it's amazing how much we learned just from our conversation this 02:07.800 --> 02:15.960 morning. So we'll also share some really new hot off the press insights that we have yet 02:15.960 --> 02:20.680 to read digest. So you're the first ones we are talking this through with. If it's a little bit 02:20.680 --> 02:28.520 raw, I hope you enjoy the process that research is sometimes it's not polished and messy 02:28.680 --> 02:35.560 along the way. We are Johan Kevin and Georg, you see it on the slides. Johan is at the 02:36.600 --> 02:42.280 research institute in Sweden. Kevin is at the Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska. 02:43.080 --> 02:52.200 And I am an open source strategist and director of sales at Petirja. And so I'm going to pass this 02:52.200 --> 02:59.480 on to Kevin to talk about the or start talking about the details. And then at the end when we 02:59.480 --> 03:08.200 get back to me, I have a bonus if he still have time for you. Kevin. Thank you, Georg. So I 03:08.200 --> 03:14.600 don't select the point out all three of us are also members of the chaos project. And then 03:14.600 --> 03:24.120 so structurally, this presentation we're going to present a slide that has some kind of key 03:24.120 --> 03:33.960 insight or key takeaways from our interviews with representatives from 20 funding organizations. 03:34.920 --> 03:41.480 And then we're going to do a follow-up slide where we have tried to capture some feedback and 03:41.960 --> 03:48.440 capture some ideas that we received during the workshop where we presented these same key ideas. 03:50.280 --> 03:59.160 At a high level, I'll start with what we learned from funders about vision, strategy and their 03:59.160 --> 04:06.040 impact logic. And the first thing I'd like to point out is that the way we talk about metrics 04:07.000 --> 04:16.680 is not neutral. So the way we talk about impact shapes what gets funded, what gets measured, 04:16.680 --> 04:26.120 and ultimately the way that work is valued. The funder's vision shapes everything, 04:27.400 --> 04:34.120 including what counts as impacts related to what I just said. And generally the funders that we've 04:34.200 --> 04:44.200 interviewed have described how they create logic chains and impact is measured directly through 04:44.200 --> 04:52.920 those logic chains, which means that there's no such thing as neutral outcomes. So funding 04:52.920 --> 05:00.760 impact is related directly to these logic chains. When we presented this work at our workshop, 05:04.760 --> 05:11.320 we had a lot of interesting discussions. One of the interesting things that came up during those 05:11.320 --> 05:18.200 discussions was around how most of our funders kind of work under this trust model, 05:20.200 --> 05:26.680 where they aim to explicitly donate to people that they trust to do the work. I would like to point 05:26.680 --> 05:33.080 out that the funders that were represented in our interviews were not from government agencies. 05:34.840 --> 05:44.200 That particular group is missing from our data. The trust model was very common with the funders 05:44.200 --> 05:55.160 that we've talked to. But they also told us that the model is fragile. So when trust is 05:55.160 --> 06:02.120 personal rather than institutional, organizations can become vulnerable when people leave that 06:02.760 --> 06:12.600 organization. When people retire or when relationships should break down. We were also told 06:12.600 --> 06:19.880 that one of the ways that funders build these logic chains is through the goal signal metric model, 06:19.880 --> 06:26.040 which I'm sure you've already probably heard of, to some degree. The goal signal metric model 06:26.120 --> 06:31.160 can be used to create impact logic, breaking down goals into questions, to ask signals to look 06:31.160 --> 06:43.240 for, and then metrics that can be used to measure those signals. Around upper-age it, 06:43.240 --> 06:52.440 the, I'll just say, upper-age operationalizing impact. I'm not going to be able to say it at 06:52.440 --> 06:58.520 this point. So it's, it's, we're too far in. So if someone wants to shout it out, please do, thank you. 07:01.720 --> 07:07.640 So what we heard in our interviews is that short-term deliverables dominate how impact is 07:07.640 --> 07:15.960 operationalized. Sustainability work is often undervalued because success often looks like nothing 07:16.040 --> 07:23.240 happened. And it's really hard to measure sustainability. Interestingly, around sustainability, 07:23.240 --> 07:29.640 a lot of the folks we talked to often talked about sustainability in terms of risk mitigation. 07:32.520 --> 07:40.760 Funding structures themselves, bias, what can be measured. For example, grants kind of lead to 07:40.760 --> 07:49.400 short-term impact measurements, right? Strategic flexibility is needed, but it's hard to reconcile 07:50.760 --> 08:06.920 that flexibility with stakeholder accountability. From the workshop, 08:07.080 --> 08:16.360 we discussed further the scaling limits of trust-based models. So reliance on personal trust 08:16.360 --> 08:24.440 becomes a bottleneck that often pushes us towards systems that more directly near kind of grant 08:24.440 --> 08:34.520 writing situations and performative reporting. There are shifting definitions of success. Many of our 08:34.520 --> 08:44.360 funders describe kind of a movement towards the hot topic of the day. So two or three years ago, 08:44.360 --> 08:53.240 security was all the rage and now everything is AI, right? And then continuity problems in funding, 08:54.200 --> 09:00.920 administrative turnover and policy shifts undermine the long-term continuity and reinforce those 09:01.320 --> 09:17.240 short-term framing situations. Hello. So looking at the impact logic from the vision, 09:17.240 --> 09:23.080 from the signals that you're looking for and then breaking down to the metrics. So from the 09:23.080 --> 09:29.560 funders that we talked to, what signals were they looking for, what types of impact were they looking 09:29.560 --> 09:37.240 for? We boiled that down into four main categories, one being the financial ROI return on investments, 09:37.960 --> 09:44.360 which is really highlighted as key for the funders to report back to their institutional 09:44.360 --> 09:50.280 backers to motivate that the money that comes in has an impact when it comes out. So 09:51.400 --> 09:58.760 this is very problematic. It's very difficult to put financial numbers on these kinds of things, 09:59.240 --> 10:05.880 but we need to talk about this. There has been studies now that on a macro level shows 10:05.880 --> 10:13.560 what kind of impact open source has on GDP and economic growth. We need to find some way to 10:13.560 --> 10:21.480 boil that, for example, one interview is said, okay, but people ask if I increase your funding 10:21.480 --> 10:29.800 by 20% what will that imply in terms of security or sustainability. If you look at road maintenance, 10:29.800 --> 10:36.360 if you say to the transport authority, you'll get 20% more funding and they will be able to 10:36.360 --> 10:41.560 provide me with a number on how many more kilometers of road will be maintained, how many more 10:41.560 --> 10:48.200 pad holes will be fixed. It will be very difficult to run there and possible to provide that maybe 10:48.200 --> 10:55.640 in the open source space, but we need to somehow try and motivate and you research in this space. 10:56.200 --> 11:03.320 Security and sustainability was also very hard topic. I mean, this can also be a concern with the 11:03.320 --> 11:10.440 funders that we talked to many of them has the main vision about security, a big security focus 11:10.680 --> 11:17.720 and related sustainability, but it's really what they're trying to improve to mitigate 11:19.480 --> 11:27.080 potential vulnerabilities and communicating the impact of a vulnerability that hasn't emerged, 11:27.880 --> 11:35.640 or hasn't realized. How do you do that? Putting a number on something that hasn't happened yet, 11:35.720 --> 11:44.760 it could happen. Downstream use and adoption, how the adoption looks was also really indicated 11:46.680 --> 11:55.000 if the mitigation of vulnerability is only to a product used by 10 people, then maybe the 11:55.000 --> 12:02.760 impact isn't as big as for say curl, which is using basically everything, but we can also talk 12:02.840 --> 12:11.320 about more innovation metrics and also like just having this software released as open source 12:11.320 --> 12:17.240 that can be an impact metric as well depending on where you're coming from. And I'm looking 12:17.240 --> 12:27.800 from the workshop reflections, they really highlighted adoption as a key metric and also as a multiplier 12:27.800 --> 12:34.280 on whatever higher level impact that you're looking for in terms of security. If you mitigated 12:34.280 --> 12:41.160 this vulnerability, how does that quantify? So it's really key, but it's also important to know 12:41.160 --> 12:48.760 what kind of target groups or what you're considering when you're looking at adoption. And the 12:48.760 --> 12:54.040 discussions with a highlighted that niche products may still weren't funding because they are 12:54.120 --> 13:01.400 very critical in this subfield. So everything, if you don't have a 100,000 user community, 13:02.840 --> 13:08.920 but you're more niche, there should still be a need for funding in those cases. 13:10.680 --> 13:15.080 While this may, there was a lot of discussion back and forth here, so this is the topic that may 13:15.080 --> 13:23.400 need further elaboration and discussion. And then also securities, yeah, as I said, quantifying 13:23.400 --> 13:30.280 or describing something that hasn't happened, something that you mitigate is difficult, but it's 13:30.280 --> 13:38.920 really key here. One funder talked about how they do rapid security reviews, taking a starting point, 13:38.920 --> 13:44.120 they do an audit and it's okay, how is the security possible right now? How many 13:44.200 --> 13:50.520 vulnerabilities are there or CVs or issues? And what's the response time and so on and so forth? 13:50.520 --> 13:57.080 And then they do another audit in a year, and then see, okay, do we have a trend here? Is it 13:57.080 --> 14:03.880 heading in a positive direction? And then they do another audit, and then see, is the secured 14:03.880 --> 14:10.840 positive? Increasingly, improving, then we can talk about an impact. And there was also talks about 14:10.840 --> 14:17.880 how security can also be a proxy for other things like maintainer health is very difficult to 14:17.880 --> 14:24.200 quantify. Maybe easier on a very single product level, but done at scale, it's very difficult. 14:24.920 --> 14:31.800 So you need different kinds of proxies. So security related signals can be a proxy for this, 14:31.800 --> 14:34.360 which could warrant further investigation. 14:40.840 --> 14:53.000 So the measurement approach that we see with a lot of funders. So most of the funders we talk to, 14:55.160 --> 14:59.720 talk to us about how a lot of their reporting, a lot of their impact, 15:01.320 --> 15:05.320 is done through qualitative narratives, right? So telling stories. 15:06.280 --> 15:14.440 However, they do believe that quantitative metrics are needed to provide credibility. 15:16.840 --> 15:22.280 Additionally, when measuring impact, establishing a baseline, 15:23.720 --> 15:31.880 is considered critical for demonstrating progress. And then there was also a discussion about 15:32.440 --> 15:39.080 kind of overly generalized frameworks, right? So overly generalized frameworks for, for 15:39.080 --> 15:48.520 measuring impact, risk erasing or losing important forms of impact. However, if we're all going 15:48.520 --> 15:56.040 to have conversations about funding, especially in an ecosystem, we kind of have, we need to have 15:56.120 --> 16:02.840 some common structure to aggregate results, right? So, and then the last part, infrastructure 16:02.840 --> 16:09.560 impact is easier to measure than human sustainability, right? So from a measurement standpoint, 16:09.560 --> 16:17.480 the metrics are easy to grab, human sustainability is a little bit harder. And as Johann mentioned 16:17.480 --> 16:23.160 on the on the previous slide, there was also some discussion that some of these metrics 16:24.040 --> 16:28.840 could be proxies for for human sustainability metrics. The very least, 16:28.840 --> 16:33.640 give us a signpost or a signal that tells us we need to look into these things a little bit further. 16:35.240 --> 16:41.960 For the workshop reflections, most of the funders we talk to believe that maintainer health is a 16:41.960 --> 16:49.880 critical blind spot. Burnout capacity constraints and leadership continuity issues often precede 16:49.880 --> 16:55.880 security and sustainability failures building on what we just talked about. And there was a suggestion 16:55.880 --> 17:06.600 on a way to handle that. Possibly similar to a surveys that they have in health, a maintainer 17:06.600 --> 17:18.600 burnout survey, which could run as a basically as part of a security audit. For impact reporting, 17:18.840 --> 17:26.600 long-term impact is acknowledged. But most of the funders we talk to are not capturing it or 17:26.600 --> 17:35.720 expressed difficulty in reporting it. Reporting formats, privilege, short-term success over 17:37.160 --> 17:45.320 ecosystem reporting. And most of the impact on reporting is audience specific, right? So these reports 17:45.800 --> 17:53.720 are written towards certain stakeholders. And then lastly, for a lot of our funders, 17:53.720 --> 18:01.480 impact reporting is often about establishing credibility or legitimacy in their funding. 18:03.160 --> 18:10.440 From the workshop reflections portion, the feedback that we got is that impact often 18:10.440 --> 18:16.760 merges too late for funding cycles. And you'll budget cycles make long-term impact hard to 18:16.760 --> 18:24.440 demonstrate. Impact needs to be defined upfront, but often it's maybe missing. 18:26.200 --> 18:33.160 And then reporting must be proportional. Heavy reporting burdens discourage projects from 18:33.320 --> 18:43.800 applying funders need clear upfront expectations. And when they are reporting to their stakeholders, 18:45.400 --> 18:52.440 they'd really like some feedback on what they can report and what stakeholders would like to hear. 19:03.160 --> 19:16.280 So we have shared many different things that we've heard and learned along the way. 19:18.120 --> 19:25.240 One thing that we are also looking at is what can we do to help improve the space? 19:25.240 --> 19:31.480 Last year, when we were here, you can look at the recording we talked about the needs that 19:31.480 --> 19:36.760 open source projects have that maintainers shared with us. This is the kind of support and 19:36.760 --> 19:43.720 help that we need. This year, we dug into the funder side on how that other side is 19:44.520 --> 19:52.680 helping open source projects, how they decide on things. And ways that we can collaborate on improving 19:52.680 --> 20:01.400 that back and forth. This is from the funder perspective is the idea that when we have open source 20:01.480 --> 20:09.400 projects and they are close to burnout where there's a single maintainer or small team that's 20:09.400 --> 20:18.520 been doing it for a really long time, how do we sense early enough that there is a risk of burnout 20:18.520 --> 20:29.880 to jump in and help when the time is needed to do that. And the story that we heard was from 20:30.760 --> 20:39.160 the caregiving side. So when someone takes care of a family member and they go into the medical 20:39.160 --> 20:45.400 institution for the regular checkup, it's not just the person that needs the care that gets checked 20:45.400 --> 20:51.240 up on the doctors and nurses also check in with the person that does the caregiving and there's 20:51.240 --> 20:56.280 a questionnaire on how are you doing, what's working, what's not working, what kind of support do you 20:57.160 --> 21:04.440 need. And if we have that something along that line in open source, maybe we can build that out 21:04.440 --> 21:12.200 together, then the projects and the funders can have these checkpoints on how is the project doing, 21:12.200 --> 21:21.000 how the people in the project doing. We also see a need for the types of measurement. We just 21:21.000 --> 21:29.640 heard that there is a lot of variety in the types of projects in the way that funding works 21:30.360 --> 21:36.760 and they're all different snowflakes. They're all unique in their own way and that's great. 21:36.760 --> 21:44.200 We love diversity, we love that. But maybe there is some standard common way that we can 21:44.200 --> 21:49.640 talk about measurement and impact. That's kind of the work that we're working on right now. 21:50.280 --> 21:55.720 Also, how do we set expectations with donors and the ones that provide the money? 21:56.840 --> 22:01.640 Up front, here's what you will get for giving the funds and then also 22:02.760 --> 22:07.960 downstream, how do you talk to the projects and make sure that when funds are given 22:08.760 --> 22:15.240 expectations are set from the beginning so that when we have impact, there's certain impact, 22:15.320 --> 22:19.880 we have certainty around, we know what the measurements are going to be, and there's no surprises 22:19.880 --> 22:27.240 next year on, hey, we need these numbers to renew the funding. We want to be able to sustain 22:27.240 --> 22:35.240 the funding long-term. So with that, I've got the time we have 10 minutes. I first want to, of 22:35.240 --> 22:41.560 course, thank our institutions for funding this research and I want to hear from you now because 22:41.640 --> 22:47.880 I brought a bonus that is separate from the research project that we're doing. It's a project 22:47.880 --> 22:55.320 that I work on in my own time, the paid open source model. I'm happy to show how in Web 3, 22:55.320 --> 23:04.200 combining open source way of collaborating. Web 3, we can build a sustainable system, hopefully, 23:04.200 --> 23:10.920 the idea. We're still in the middle of building this out. Or do you want some time to ask questions 23:11.000 --> 23:17.240 right now? Now, I'm going to ask you to signal by knocking on the desk in front of you. 23:17.960 --> 23:21.800 Two options. One, do you want to ask questions? Knock now. 23:24.280 --> 23:28.680 All right, we have a few. Who is interested in the bonus? Knock now. 23:30.920 --> 23:36.440 All right, I heard more knocking. So I'll do that first, keep it short, so we still have time for questions. 23:37.400 --> 23:46.520 The, when we look at open source ecosystem, I'll just start there. We have the development of software, 23:46.520 --> 23:52.280 something is created that provides functionality that can be used inside of products, 23:52.280 --> 23:59.560 which then commercial entities can build services around. That is the open source model from 23:59.560 --> 24:07.320 creation to creating something that has users, a community, and hopefully financial inflow. 24:07.320 --> 24:16.200 If we do this in a Web 3 environment, and the open source projects are tools in the Web 3 tool chain, 24:17.000 --> 24:23.480 then on the blockchain, there are transaction fees. Every time someone uses the open source 24:23.480 --> 24:29.560 software, now there is a transaction fee to actually make something happen on the blockchain, 24:29.560 --> 24:37.560 and that can be a fee on that that goes into the treasury, and we can use that to fund the open source 24:37.560 --> 24:44.040 development again. So we can have a positive reinforcing cycle, because now when we have money flowing 24:44.040 --> 24:51.240 into open source and developing high quality software, people trust it more to build new tools, 24:51.240 --> 24:56.120 build more products, which then has more uses, which then has more transactions, 24:56.120 --> 25:03.960 and more transaction fees, and not bigger treasury, and there's a positive cycle where we hopefully 25:03.960 --> 25:11.720 get empowered community that is funded. We reduce the risk of maintaining a burnout. We have 25:11.720 --> 25:18.760 a global adoption, people trust in the security. There is money available for those kinds of things, 25:19.080 --> 25:24.360 and it creates sustainable funding, because there's a direct link between growing users, 25:24.360 --> 25:30.520 more transactions, more transaction fees in the pot. So right now we are in the middle of building 25:30.520 --> 25:38.360 this out at intersect for the Cardano space, and I'll just briefly, high level walk this through 25:38.360 --> 25:43.960 and give you the resource where you can dig into this more. When we take this software delivery 25:43.960 --> 25:49.160 lifecycle here on the left, there are different phases along that, and we have different programs, 25:49.160 --> 25:55.080 whether it's the maintainer, retainer program, or we fund community maintainers to take care of 25:56.200 --> 26:02.120 the day-to-day work in the community, not just work on the software itself, but also 26:02.760 --> 26:08.360 triaging bugs, being their answering questions. So there's funding for that. Code for us, 26:08.360 --> 26:14.360 where during the we need a new tool phase, we have grants that we can give out and say, 26:14.360 --> 26:20.440 please help us develop this. People are paid to do that. The project support services, the projects 26:20.440 --> 26:26.440 themselves may not have the knowledge, the insights to look at what is my community doing, 26:26.440 --> 26:35.640 how can I improve their support available that is paid for to do this, also strategic partnerships 26:35.640 --> 26:42.920 and so on. That then creates the libraries, the products which are feeding into a whole 26:42.920 --> 26:50.440 ecosystem of things. So I want to pause here, stop here, these are the resources if you're interested 26:50.440 --> 26:58.680 in imagining what a different world we could be living in when we combine web three, 26:58.680 --> 27:05.000 blockchain, and open source and hopefully create a funding mechanism and model that is sustainable. 27:06.040 --> 27:13.640 With that, we are now opening up for questions. Since some of you had questions and I believe 27:13.640 --> 27:19.560 there was a microphone that is going to be passed around and then I'm going to take this off again, 27:19.560 --> 27:23.720 because Johan or Kevin might be more qualified to answer some of your questions. 27:23.720 --> 27:25.880 What are your questions? Who knows? 27:26.920 --> 27:32.760 The one question would be for example, sorry. If you have a project that is not commercial, 27:32.840 --> 27:38.120 you have a commercial in there. You have a lot of maintenance put in there, small team, 27:38.120 --> 27:42.920 everybody spends half a day on maintenance. You can't put it into numbers, what comes out 27:42.920 --> 27:49.480 with maintenance, but what comes out, if half of the team says, I'm exhausted, I have to give up. 27:49.480 --> 27:55.800 It's a project that's going well, down, because it's not really maintenance. Where can you 27:55.800 --> 28:01.480 reach out to to say we would need some funding to go on, even if it's a small continuous funding 28:01.480 --> 28:10.040 of the purpose? So there is an effort that I want to plug in. Emma Irwin is 28:10.040 --> 28:16.600 beheading an effort right now called the Open Source Visualist, where maintenance or projects 28:16.600 --> 28:23.240 can say, here's actually what we need and define it in a standard format so that aggregators 28:23.240 --> 28:30.120 like the ecosystem's data set that is collecting from all the package managers, the packages, 28:30.120 --> 28:35.960 we can pull that data in and see at scale, okay, what are the projects that, and I'm speaking 28:35.960 --> 28:41.560 from the user perspective right now. As a user, I can go through what are all of the packages 28:41.560 --> 28:49.560 that I depend on, what are the maintainers and communities telling me they need so that I can 28:49.560 --> 28:58.280 hopefully support them. From a project perspective, they're then just pointed out in the previous 28:58.280 --> 29:03.240 talk. There are a lot of different programs, really difficult to keep a list of these are the 29:03.240 --> 29:08.360 project programs available right now because they open, they close, they change all the time. 29:14.360 --> 29:22.280 Yeah, as a maintainer, there's a lot and how do you communicate that? So check out the 29:22.280 --> 29:28.600 wish list that might be, yeah, thank you, there's another one back there. 29:28.600 --> 29:33.080 Hi, I was going to ask a question about being a small maintainer but you said the word block chain 29:33.080 --> 29:39.480 and so now I'm completely distracted by this terrible idea and I just, this is new to me, 29:39.480 --> 29:43.240 I have a feeling you've probably gotten this question before but I want to ask it so that everyone 29:43.240 --> 29:49.000 else can hear the answer that I hope to hear too, which is if you take the word block chain out of 29:49.000 --> 29:59.880 this, this just sounds like you're commercializing the open source software. Why, what, how is this 29:59.880 --> 30:05.080 not just commercializing the software, this sounds like paper use, which is not what 30:05.080 --> 30:11.080 free software is about? So when we look at the open source software that we have right now, 30:11.080 --> 30:18.520 there are commercial companies that built on top of them and they extract value in a sense 30:18.600 --> 30:23.160 and they offer services that they could build more quickly, more cheaply than if they have 30:23.160 --> 30:27.960 to do everything themselves because they're building on the existing building blocks that we 30:27.960 --> 30:35.960 in the open source community developed. That is the, the model here and there's no flow back. 30:37.560 --> 30:44.360 In the blockchain context we have is there are transaction fees for every blockchain 30:44.360 --> 30:51.960 transaction like a tax. So if you were to go and say every software user has to pay a tax or 30:51.960 --> 30:57.480 every company that is using open source pays a tax and now there is a treasury that has money 30:57.480 --> 31:02.680 available that can reinvest into that open source software. That's what's different here because 31:02.680 --> 31:10.120 we have that feedback loop and a mechanism for capturing some value that we can now reintroduce 31:10.120 --> 31:18.440 into that early open source development. Thank you. We can chat more afterwards, certainly. 31:18.440 --> 31:23.240 Thank you. Here's another question. Yeah, so it's four small questions. 31:24.440 --> 31:29.480 So which kind of funders have you been talking to? Which kind of initiatives have been funding? 31:30.040 --> 31:33.640 Do you have examples and it's very reported you'll study which we can read somewhere? 31:35.320 --> 31:38.360 Do you want to talk to that? I don't think we want to 31:38.360 --> 31:43.880 name specific funders right now, but I'm happy to talk off line when we're not recording. 31:51.000 --> 31:55.400 We, I would say we've talked to both large corporations. 31:57.480 --> 32:01.560 American large corporations doing funding in this space. We've talked to 32:01.640 --> 32:07.160 collaborations between large companies doing joint funding. 32:08.040 --> 32:17.560 We've talked to foundations doing and receiving funding. We've talked to 32:18.840 --> 32:24.040 government institutions both doing different kinds of funding. 32:25.880 --> 32:31.000 Both towards maintenance and other types. So I would say we've covered up quite broad field 32:31.000 --> 32:39.000 of various funders. So both government, private, more nonprofit and philanthropic as well. 32:44.040 --> 32:49.480 Yeah, that's what we're going to. So again, we've just finished the interviews and we just did a 32:49.480 --> 32:53.720 workshop on this this morning. So the report will be out definitely soon. 32:55.320 --> 33:00.280 We're meeting on Tuesday at a Wednesday, I think, to decide where we're going to publish. 33:00.360 --> 33:02.440 So this is all still in the works. 33:03.880 --> 33:07.880 There's another question back there. Yes. Hi. So this is regarding the 33:08.600 --> 33:17.480 maintainer burnout that you said and I just want to ask from your survey. Did you not find this 33:17.480 --> 33:24.200 point that the amount it takes for a new contribution to make it into the 33:24.200 --> 33:31.800 the upstream, right? That is a big indication how much load is on the maintainer. 33:31.800 --> 33:38.920 If there are a lot of patches, merge requests, whatever is open, vulnerability fixes that are not 33:38.920 --> 33:47.720 getting in or takes a lot of time to get in, right? Maybe the there is a bottleneck at this level 33:47.800 --> 33:55.960 for people to review it and get it. This I did not find maybe it's covered in your research later. 33:58.040 --> 34:06.040 Yes, you're absolutely right. There are proxy metrics or indicators that when burnout occurs, 34:06.040 --> 34:13.400 certain symptoms show up in the community that we can look at. And the the funders that we 34:13.480 --> 34:19.240 talk to there are aware of this. The funders that we talked to by the way are really 34:19.240 --> 34:26.120 deeply ingrained in open source. All of them understand the problem. It's an institutional 34:26.120 --> 34:34.760 and system level problem often where they have demands from the donors or structurally or 34:34.760 --> 34:42.440 budgetary because it's only year to year. So the breakdown that we see are in the system 34:42.520 --> 34:48.360 more so than in the people. That's where the insight that it's relationship based comes out. 34:48.360 --> 34:53.960 Because a lot of them we've heard, hey, I sometimes just look the maintainer in the eye to 34:53.960 --> 34:59.960 understand where they're at and I can just see the burnout sometimes. So yes, thank you. 35:01.080 --> 35:07.080 I see time is up. Thank you so much everyone for being here, joining us today and being part 35:07.080 --> 35:19.880 of this journey as we learn and I hope you learned something as well.