Gitcoin Grants 22 (GG22) OSS Eligibility Criteria

[mars]

@MathildaDV

Projects are expected to demonstrate established and ongoing development activity, indicated by meeting at least three of the following criteria:

• A first commit more than 90 days prior
• A recent commit within the last 30 days
• Activity on more than 20 days in the previous 90 days
• Contributions from more than one individual
  Projects that only meet two of these criteria will receive a manual review, whereas those failing to meet at least two criteria are deemed ineligible.

I find these metrics weak / incomplete. Enough to update the readme.md for the purpose of the GG22 and 3 out of 4 is already accomplished.

• A first commit more than 90 days prior
• A recent commit within the last 30 days
• Activity on more than 20 days in the previous 90 days (that’s the only one difficult to tick)
• Contributions from more than one individual

No manual review? $1M in matching funds (tweet) is a serious number:

I would like to participate in this Web3 fundraising festival

I would like to apply with a hackathon project, single commit to readme.md makes it automatically 3 ouf of 4 and no manual review, but it doesn’t feel right. It is not morally OK in my book, I think that the hackathon round (and other rounds) should promote projects that are actively developed. In fact, I genuinely believe that 20 days with commits should be the baseline rule.

Or maybe I should apply anyway and highlight in the grant application which features I intend to develop. A financial lifeline allowing to focus on a project, without worrying about other, legacy, traditional sources of income such as job. It would be a great honour and privilege to continue working on open source public goods.

Question about roadmaps:

• grant application is more like a legal contract?
• grant application is more like sales and marketing?

About roadmaps and what already has been done:

@mars

Proposed VS retroactive

To avoid any potential future debates, worth stating explictly if the grant is for the proposed work or retroactive.

Raising this question / requst for clarification due to by real-life experience with 2-of-2 multisig and what I call “conflict transformation” (CT). Usually DDD (discussions, debated, disputes) are net negative, I decided to CT and make it net positive.

DeSci experiment about “default assumptions”: https://forms.gle/3ESySd3o7DmzuK5d6

(check it out it, is worth your time, you can also join @IndependentTribunal on Telegram)

---

Bring me onboard as a juror / evaluator

Good cop: I can be helpful, supportive, offer loads of solicited / unsolicited advice, review the projects to see what is out there and connect different parts of the ecosystem

Bad cop: I can be obsesive, pedantic, autistic, find holes, ensuring only Kosher Halal top-notch projects are entrusted with admission. Or maybe it’s not the place for gatekeeping, it will be QF and popularity contest to decide?

Objective cop: I also represent ImpactEvaluation.Foundation (IEF). We are a fresh project with massive vision. It would be greatly beneficial for me personally and for us as organinisation to gain some experience in reviewing the projects.

Can be as volunteer, can be as minimal wage, can be at 75-80% of the hourly rate paid to the team / contractors / consultants, can as “pay it forward” focusing on adding value to the entire ecosystem.