2025 Funding Process Iteration

[steiza]

We are just wrapping up the 2024 OpenSSF Technical Initiative funding process, but we already have many ideas on what we want to see changed for next year (or things we'll at least consider).

For now, this issue will be used to collect those ideas, and then when the 2025 TAC is seated we'll use this input to do an iteration on https://github.com/ossf/tac/blob/main/process/TI%20Funding%20Request%20Process.md and set the 2025 schedule.

[steiza]

Here are some of the suggestions I've heard:

• How can we make the application easier, especially for smaller amounts?

• Can we create a directory of who has provided services to the OpenSSF in the past? Technical writers, UI/UXperts, security audits, writing code, ...

• Can we provide an abstract "menu" listing out types of request (cloud credits, technical writing, security audits, writing code) and link to example applications, and maybe summarize typical amounts and TI lifecycle stage?

• And / or can we create an end of year report of all the things we funded, to help TIs make similar applications in the future?

• How often should the TAC review funding requests? Quarterly again? Every 2 months? Rolling basis?

• Should there be an easier process for a previously approved request to be renewed for another year? This came up with [Technical Initiative Funding Request]: RSTUF Cloud/k8s deployment costs for tests, demo and validations #315 and [Technical Initiative Funding Request]: 2025 RSTUF Cloud/k8s deployment costs for tests, demo and validations #417.

• (EDIT / added) Should we move the application process from issues to pull requests, to be consistent with TI lifecycle updates and TI quarterly updates?

[mlieberman85]

My recommendation would be rolling basis if possible. I think we do so few that having them come up as they need would be fine. If we start to get overwhelmed then I think we can switch to something like quarterly.

[lehors]

• Should there be an easier process for a previously approved request to be renewed for another year?

I don't think the current process is complicated and worth simplifying.

[steiza]

Another item for discussion: how long should the review period be?

I think the 1 week we had for 2024 was too short, especially if folks had business travel or vacation scheduled that week. I would suggest a 2 week review period.

[di]

Would be nice to have some examples of what is/isn't a valid funding request, and how they could be structured. Maybe some previously submitted proposals and the result? Or hypotheticals.