Re: Common Good Cyber Fund Grant Program for Debian
Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:07:57 +0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.project |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <amEjHQlWEgWiPivR@localhost> |
On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 06:42:31PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote: > Hello Adrian, > > El mié, 22 jul 2026 a las 13:21, Adrian Bunk (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > > The first problem would be the requirement "that the applicant is a > > qualifying nonprofit organization", which is the old issue that Debian > > is not a legal entity. > > > > Perhaps SPI might be sufficient. > > Yes, SPI qualifies. > > > > (since all of it would require > > > financial control and lots of paperwork)? > > > > This is the longstanding problem that a non-profit project of our size > > and asking for donations should really have a proper budget process and > > annual financial reports on our website. > > That should be covered by SPI, the non-profit, Debian is associated project. What about money in other TOs? Is "A current operational budget" something Debian has? > > The program you are linking to would be one person paid full-time for > > two years, and then there would have to be both a suitable project > > planned, and confidence that paying money there won't have a negative > > impact on the unpaid volunteers working in that area. > > > > A project that might fit the last bullet point of Objective 1 in this > > grant would be to make our own infrastructure more resilient, two years > > wouldn't be too much for designing, discussing and implementing improvements. > > > > But such a project would have to be properly planned before applying. > > And it would need someone available with the required skills in > > security and AI. > > When reading your email about "security team burnout", I thought this > fund could be an option to mitigate such concern, however, how could > make it fit and work for the project? Would it be valuable? The general problem with such grants is that they are for additional features[1] - this is temporary funding of additional work, not long-term funding of everyday work. > Regards cu Adrian [1] with a very loose definition of "features", e.g. new hardware might get funded