> I think them funding projects directly with cash could cause a lot of problems though. The increase regulations that would need to be added would probably not be worth it for open source projects. People who get funding would likely need to submit a lot of documentation, there'd also probably be weird rules about non U.S. citizens etc... and laws would need to be passed.
I think 18F's modular contracting methodology is highly effective for this sort endeavor, if you can take the opinion that they're the sponsor and benevolent dictator driving that part of the codebase (and the code developed is open sourced upon confirmation acceptance criteria has been met).
Thank you for switching to an open development model. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Nice link, I've followed 18F a little and I'm interested in everything they're doing.
I think whipping contractors into shape is the easiest path to increasing government participation in open source. It's easier than coming up with new regulations specifically around open source funding.
Billions of dollars are spent each year by the federal government on custom software development anyways. And on the whole, they end up spending about what big tech companies do for engineers (but not getting the same level of quality) Forcing the contractors to be more open will probably keep them more honest and make them write less shitty code.
I think the contracting model (which has it's place!) is really at the root of the problem. The time for contractors is when you need something that is very rare in the world or you need a large temporary expansion of capacity.
A lot of government contracts are the kind of work that will be consistently taking place over decades and can be done by any of hundreds of thousands of similarly competent people. Imagine if you didn't even need to write a contract, didn't need a bidding process, that could be substantial time and money saved on its own.
Then with FTEs minor initiatives like finding interesting internal libraries to open source can just happen. What I'm saying isn't a new idea (really it's an old idea) and I very much admire those who are actually taking the risk to make this kind of thing happen because the failures can be very visible and successes sometimes aren't.
I think 18F's modular contracting methodology is highly effective for this sort endeavor, if you can take the opinion that they're the sponsor and benevolent dictator driving that part of the codebase (and the code developed is open sourced upon confirmation acceptance criteria has been met).
Thank you for switching to an open development model. A rising tide lifts all boats.
https://18f.gsa.gov/2019/04/09/why-we-love-modular-contracti...