Hey @OPUser thanks for writing this. I will take the conversation from Dope Wars here to not be off-topic there!
For reference the convo is here: [DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Dope Wars - #88 by OPUser
Public goods are things like parks, roads etc. They are goods that are free for all to use without any discrimination. But those same things require lots of funding. That funding in the real world comes from taxes. So we all pay for them, but indirectly.
I think “public goods” as a term is a bit loaded and overused and started appearing in our field when gitcoin wanted to pivot from opensource funding to grants for everything. So for me opensource software is “the” public good. It’s the very definition of public good. There is other stuff that can be considered public goods but it’s really hard to define and can be challenged so when I think of public goods I think of opensource software. I like to keep things simple. (my entire career is based on opensource so I am a bit biased here though)
Your definition of opensource software is correct but let me direct you to the exact definition seen here. This is the most widely accepted definition (OSI and FSF) and also why it’s pretty much impossible to “just sell” a product that is opensource. You can sell support, a version with some added goodies but not simply sell the software.
I dont agree with you on this one, I will apply Mean-Test here, successful projects might have other source of income/funding so we cant put them in same bucket with new project and/public good. Its not fair game and will raise this concern once we reach at that point.
It’s not about agreeing or not. This is what has happened so far with RPGF in both Optimism (notice most top projects are already funded in one way or another) and Gitcoin grants.
Being a gitcoin steward and grantee for years now this is what I have noticed there too. And it’s not bad to give recognition to projects that already have some funding, but yes I agree with you projects the most in need of it should get it.
But what I believe in is transparency and auditability. Two pillars of opensource. I believe also in transparent funding. So a project should simply say how much it needs and get it if it’s doing good and is useful. Not just get “as much money as possible” like with the current gitcoin grants model.
I am already proposing a funding cap per quarter for projects there too.
And yes this won’t be done in one go! We will try, we will make mistakes, we will try again and so on and so forth.
Same thing we have been doing with gitcoin. Learning as we go. This field does have the capacity to do a lot of good and we should use it to its full potential.