@freedcreative There's prior art in government and Open Data, but it goes against the appeal of "meritocracy" in Open Source.
Such an approach would be controversial, but I quite like it! Then again funding libre software more generally is often controversial.
@alcinnz @freedcreative@merveilles.town
I think it's not just an appeal it's a phenomenon that you can't ignore. Most people simply don't have anything to say about certain aspects of software development that arguably use up most of the resources/investments, so your business model already is targeting a minority, which will be roughly divided into two groups:
1. those who know precisely what they want from the developers,
2. those who only have some vague ideas, which might even be detrimental
Group 1 is likely already in the industry, and they would often like to view this more like "hiring a developer" than just "having a say". They would also be interested in keeping certain key developments(if not all) proprietary for the benefit of their business (this is where GPL kicks in to protect the community, but that's beside the point). They would also not be interested in group 2 being involved, because it makes things complicated, and also they are potential future clients.
Group 2, in addition to being harder to deal with, will likely not be able to offset group 1 in investments, at least as long as proprietary software remains a huge revenue generator.
Because of all of this, your project will be more successful if you favor group 1.
@namark @freedcreative Dad's experience in Open Data shows there's a third group who'd join latter when they realize their folly: People who want/need the project to continue.
Yes, it seems that's the only way to improve the situation - raise awareness and educate people about the importance of free software. I guess the best neutral ground for such a revolution are indeed governments, schools, universities, non profit organization and such, that are not tied up in "business".
@freedcreative@merveilles.town
