FLOSS/fund for free and open source projects

> That's already 10x more simpler than the 20 page document some of these other orgs have you fill. Looking at you

I guess somebody has to point out the obvious ....

First, the process is probably simpler because the donation amounts are going to be smaller. If there's only $1M per year in the bank, I somehow don't see them giving out the sorts of large sums the others you mentioned do, e.g. OpenTechFund says it will give up to $400,000 ... I don't see that happening with a fund that only has $1M a year to give out.

Second, building on the above, giving out large sums involves a greater amount of due diligence.

Finally, sadly, the most obvious point .... a longer form helps sort the wheat from the chaff. Both in terms of cutting down the volume of applications some poor soul has to trawl over, but also helping keep the quality of applications high.

> First, the process is probably simpler because the donation amounts are going to be smaller.

I've applied to each of those funds for ~£5k. The process remains the same.

From the post:

> Put money where the mouth is—a minimum of $10,000 and up to $100,000 for a single recipient, totaling $1 million per year, which we will increase once we understand the dynamics of running the fund.

> once we understand the dynamics of running the fund

I suspect that phrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting and would not be surprised if the length of the required paperwork increases in good time.

It is also worth reading the FAQ, it very much sounds like it remains the case that you are not going to escape 20 pages of paperwork, just that they are kicking the can down the road:

"If your application is accepted, our team will reach out to you for the necessary paperwork (such as tax residency documents required by Indian laws) before processing the funds. This generally involves back-and-forth communication over email and can take up to 4 weeks"

> just that they are kicking the can down the road:

"Just" does a lot of heavy lifting here, considering that you only need all that paperwork if you are accepted ;)

> "Just" does a lot of heavy lifting here

No, it does not.

Might I invite you to consider the context of what I am saying ?

The OP here was boasting about "all you need" is a funding.json and none of the 20 pages of forms of the other organisations the OP chose to name and shame.

What I am saying is you're not going to escape those 20 pages. Do it now or do it later, you're still going to have to put in more effort than "just" a funding.json.

That is why I took issue with the OP naming and shaming the other organisations. It is both misleading and unfair on the other funders.

I considered the context, and lo and behold, it says "To apply".

Which makes a huge difference, because you do indeed escape those 20 pages if you are not accepted.

> Finally, sadly, the most obvious point .... a longer form helps sort the wheat from the chaff. Both in terms of cutting down the volume of applications some poor soul has to trawl over, but also helping keep the quality of applications high.

Opposite effect, actually. Longer forms get you a lot of the top 10%, but you miss out on the top 0.0001% who don't want to waste their time with people who aren't smart enough to design a brief form.

I worked in non-profit funding for many a year, and in the more traditional charity space, there's zero -- even negative -- correlation between grant value and effort.

It's also not just about the initial (typically multi-stage) application, but then the reporting and compliance requirements, the random donor requests.

This sort of thing is often objectively worse for smaller funders, but also relatively worse with smaller amounts of money as it's harder to resource for people to deal with the crap. Grant money ain't free.

Is there any actual evidence of this? It seems to just be something lazy people who believe themselves to be smart would say.

> Is there any actual evidence of this?

Great question.

Some starting ideas to look for datasets: look at quality of innovation coming out of YC (short form that can be completed in < 10 minutes) versus many government agencies such as NIH (long, horrible application process that require attending training sessions).

> What I am saying is you're not going to escape those 20 pages.

I don't think that's clear at all. The part you quoted mentions tax forms as an example of what will need to be filled out afterward. Of course you'll need to fill those sorts of things out, and that feels very distinct from some sort of multi-page application where you have to tell them why you believe you deserve the grant. And the start of the sentence you quoted is, "If your application is accepted", which to me implies that they're going to make a firm yes/no decision as to whether to give you money based solely on the funding.json thing.

Of course only time will tell how this will work out in practice, but their initial wording seems to suggest they will make a go/no-go decision based on a very simple "application".

> Finally, sadly, the most obvious point .... a longer form helps sort the wheat from the chaff. Both in terms of cutting down the volume of applications some poor soul has to trawl over, but also helping keep the quality of applications high.

Does it though or does it sort out the projects who would rather focus on developing while selecting those better at marketing themselves than at building useful things aka the professional bullshitter class.