I’d like to see more projects do a breakdown of total yearly costs (including contributor compensation!), how much existing sponsorships from companies actually cover, and what number they’d need to operate properly (with full-time, paid contributors).
Of course the same thing happens in reverse (see recent python.org refusal to accept federal funding)
> Is it really necessary for a DEI policy being required to appear…?
So ignoring the, well, ignorance of the remainder of your statement, it’s worth pointing out that these entities already publish mission statements, community/contributor guidelines, and a raft of other documentation that governs how they intend to operate as a way of greasing the wheels of operations. Policies are the norm, not the exception, because they dictate the rules of engagement.
So yeah, I’m all for groups making clear what they do and do not find acceptable. Transparency is a good thing, be it in code (open source), accounting, policy, or governance. And if more groups opened up their books and laid bare their operations, it’d be easier to tie their outcomes to industrial and governmental bad actors (like AWS, Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc) that fail to substantially support these technologies, or demand favors or policy changes in exchange for basic funding.
Ideally? Orgs that use open source tech in their products ought to chip in a fixed percentage to ongoing support of that project. If an entity like AWS chipped in, say, 0.01% of revenue from every service that used NTP, then the NTP organization almost certainly wouldn’t require additional funding.