Replying to Avatar ODELL

SOLID SUMMARY BUT THIS IS KEY:

IDEALLY MORE PEOPLE SUPPORT DEVS DIRECTLY.

IDEALLY WE HAVE MORE ORGS PROVIDING FUNDING IN THE SPACE.

IDEALLY SOME FOSS PROJECTS DEVELOP SUSTAINABLE ETHICAL BIZ MODELS (SPARROW IS A GOOD EXAMPLE HERE.)

--

AS FOR YOUR LAST QUESTION, THERE IS NO MAGICAL PERSON THAT IS ACTIVE IN THIS SPACE THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY BIASES OR CONFLICTS. CENTRALIZED ORGS WILL ALWAYS BE CENTRALIZED.

WE ARE GOING TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TRY TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BIASES ON THE ORG. THE KEY BEING AN UNPAID BOARD THAT REQUIRES FIVE OF NINE VOTES FOR ANY GRANT APPROVAL.

I THINK WE HANDLE THIS BETTER THAN 99% OF NON PROFITS IN EXISTENCE. WE WILL CONTINUE TO IMPROVE OUR PROCESSES OVER TIME.
Avatar
Sikto 1y ago

I đź’Ż agree with what you said about everyone having biases, and/or conflicts of interest, hence the reason for my questions, and maybe the questions of others.

I appreciate you taking the time, and I believe I have a better picture of the situation, how funding works, what your goals are as an individual investor, and member of the opensats team. I hope others have too.

🤙

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Sikto 1y ago

One more question I have: has the board ever discussed recusing an individual from the process of grant approvals, if there is a conflict of interest, or if one could be construed?

Avatar
JCB 1y ago

Seeing it from afar I believe the only thing we should want and maybe nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx wants is just to have more funding FOSS either direct to devs or through new opensats “competitors”. Those could have different biases and in the end biases should even out. The only wrong answer is to not support