News from octave.org: sponsors, code of conduct, and project governance

Sponsors

To comply to the code of conduct from Fosshost, the Octave project should

Display the Fosshost logo on your website and README if you have a Git repository, the logo should be linked to the Fosshost website;

We could be joking and say, that we have a Mercurial repository :sweat_smile: however, to comply with the website part I have the following suggestion on the preview page (https://gnu-octave.github.io/):

Before publishing the changes of the official website https://octave.org, I would like to share my draft with the community for discussion, as this is something new to advertise sponsors.

I also feel we should list Discourse there, as they provide a high-quality forum software for free to us. Anybody missing? (How about the FSF?)

Code of conduct

As part of a potential NumFocus sponsorship it might be required to have an explicit code of conduct, like other projects. For example:

If anybody has experience with establishing such a document. I would be happy about ideas, otherwise I would copy&paste+adapt one of the above.

Project governance

Like the CoC above for NumFocus, it should be made more transparent how decisions are made in our Octave community. Stressing the examples from above:

Those look to me a bit too much, but probably extending the About section might be a start. Help and suggestions are very appreciated.

1 Like

Many open source projects like Discourse itself use one of the ready-made codes of conduct like Contributor Covenant (discourse/code-of-conduct.md at main · discourse/discourse · GitHub) or many others like it. It looks like Python made a serious effort to synthesize theirs from multiple sources; given our lower profile and limited human resources we should probably pick a standard one, at least to start with, and build on it in future as needed.

1 Like

Regarding project governance, the Julia model aligns well: Julia Governance They’re also part of NumFOCUS. Perhaps we could use that as a basis?

I looked at the governance of other open source projects like R (very formal, split between a full consortium and a community), TeX (extremely decentralized, no discernible formal structure) and others. No easy way to transplant those structures for us though.

This is a good time to ask: what is the extent of the support that Octave gets from FSF? Is it limited to the hosting for the code, binaries and the Mercurial repository on Savannah or is there other support? I understand there used to be travel budget for the OctConf conference but that has not happened after 2018, correct?

Thanks for the input regarding the Code of Conduct and the Governance. Both of your suggestions seem easier to adapt for Octave :slightly_smiling_face: :+1:

To my humble knowledge, the FSF currently helps Octave collecting donations and provides the GNU Savannah infrastructure. Octave does not get any (monetary) funding by the FSF.

The funding for visiting conferences, I received such in 2013 for Milano (@cdf and all, it was a great conference! :wink: ), seems to no longer exist anymore. Those grants were decided between the FSF and individuals. I think “Octave” (@jwe or the conference organizers) did not have any decision authority about FSF grants.

Only because of the infrastructure support, the FSF might be considered as “sponsor”. Thinking about this longer GitHub and SourceForge might have to be listed then as well :thinking:

@siko1056: Correct, the FSF doesn’t provide any direct funding but they have collected donations for us. We control how the funds are spent with some restrictions due to the FSF being a charity organization under US tax law. They also provide hosting for savannah (Mercurial, web hosting, mailing lists) and ftp.gnu.org.

1 Like