A Structure for Foundations.txt

gistfile1.txt

A Better Foundation

There's been a lot of noise around the foundation, and its goodness or badness - and what I see is a bunch of people trying to work hard with invisible-to-the-outside constraints that don't always work out. There's a tension between commercial considerations (providing assurance to consumers) and community considerations (freedom of project owners over their own work).

But enough negative.

How could we do better? 
What would I do?
What's the kindest thing with the most transparent support?

The Goals

- Support the creators of projects
- Provide funding and training for creators of projects

- Provide assurance to consumers of projects
  - That the projects will not go away
  - That the projects will be paid-to-be-supported if such a situation exists
  - That security concerns will be addressed
  
- Guide and grow the ecosystem by supporting other organisations that consume the platform and the projects.
  - By paying for training materials, teachers, and hands-on assistance to these outside orgs.


Supporting Creators of Projects

- Funds for legal support offered to all projects, as required, by consultation
- Selection of strategic training opportunities open to all members to grow their skills and projects
- Pastoral care and advice - quarterly forums on special interest topics calendered and open to all


Provide Assurance using "Ranked" projects

TL;DR - The higher the rank, the greater the level of conformity to Foundation standards and tooling exists. The higher the project ranking, the greater the level of assurance.

Why?

- Provdes a simple on-boarding experience
- Doesn't force conformity on member projects
- Sets expectations for consumers
- Doesn't force control or oversight if the project doesn't wish it
- Provides a platform for growth.
- Provides guidance and path towards uniformity if desired

Projects get to choose to what degree they conform to foundation norms, without penalty.
More coherence, increases the amount of support available.

But every project is valid, and loved, and supported regardless.
Addresses that tension between creator love, and commercial piece of mind.


Supported by a Maturity model.

Projects self-certify their own maturity, and the Foundation enforces adherence to their own self-certified "level".

Bronze Affiliate Project

- Lowest barrier to entry - no changes required to project
- Championed by Foundation members
- "We like this" badge of honour
- Foundation promoted, not "supported".

Silver Project

- Project accepted as important or growing, seeking adoption
- No conformity to standards, but path charted towards using centralised Foundation infrastructure.-
- No IP / rights transferred

Gold Project

- Adheres to foundation standards of documentation
- Follows foundation default tools and build requirements (security scanning, etc)
- Hosted under Foundation organisation
- Rights retained by contributors

Gilded Project

- All of the above
- IP rights transferred to foundation
- Highest level of "commercial assurance"
- Highest level  of creator restriction.


The Process

- Projects apply for acceptance by raising tickets on a public tracker.
- They start out as Affiliate Projects, and move through the maturity model to the point of their own comfort
- Foundation can offer different degrees of assurances depending on project maturity
- Creators can choose what they need, and what their own goals are.


Why this is good:

- Retains choice
- Offers meaningful support
- Everyone from member upwards gets all the pastoral and human support
- Gilded projects can be canonised and assured at a commercial level


Initiatives should primarily support the people in them, and the extend themselves out to support the community supporting them.

Expectations on a project should be clear, and what you can expect from a work should be, correspondingly, equally clear.

All organisations have growing pains, and the only way we solve em is by talking about it <3