We’ve had a few conversations in the last week where different sub-communities are interested in applying for another round of CZI EOSS funding (funding call here).
Two proposals from the JupyterHub community - one on enhancing the “Outreachy + Contributor in Residence” program with a community advocate role, and another funding a position to focus on connections between JupyterHub deployments + adjacent tools in the cloud.
@jasongrout mentioned that he is working on a proposal for community workshop management as well.
Are others working on CZI EOSS proposals? @jasongrout and @trallard made a good point that we should coordinate and see if there are opportunities to join forces, or pitch complementary ideas! Please share if you’re working on something.
EDIT: in case it helps others put together these (or other) applications, I put together a short list of Jupyter grants that I know of. Please edit/add/comment as you like, I hope it’s helpful:
I am submitting a proposal for Papyri, to improve and add navigation to IPython/Jupyter docs when using the ?/?? operator, both in IPython (terminal), and notebook or Lab.
See attached screenshot for the terminal prototype. My goal is to also have access to narrative docs from within the ? pager and inspector; with most of current hosted features (Mathjax, inline graphs,…).
Regarding Jupyter-related CZI grant proposals, I think that it is very important that there is clarity about the legal entity applying for funding (company, university, non-profit).
If it is a different organization than the project itself through NumFOCUS, there should probably be some kind of approval of the proposal by the steering committee for this to be done on behalf of Jupyter.
Yeah I agree - when we last applied for the Contributor in Residence program via JupyterHub, we needed to get Steering Council approval, though it was unclear whether that was just to use the NumFocus account, or if it was to allow us to apply “as Jupyter(Hub)”. That said, it might be better to make this a “lazy consensus” kind of thing rather than a full vote, otherwise it’ll be very cumbersome (AKA, does anyone think this proposal is not “in-scope” for Jupyter, rather than “should this proposal be chosen over other proposals”.)
I think that for most grants this isn’t an issue because the grant isn’t usually “for the open source project”, but rather “for the group submitting the grant”. But these EOSS grants feel a bit different to me since they are earmarked for the project.
For mine I was planning to apply through NumFOCUS.
Speaking if that is there a convenient list of previous EOSS number for previsous applications ? They will be needed for anything jupyter_related for the LOI.
I wonder if we could synergize the DEI component of the JupyterHub proposal with others in the Jupyter community. I think our hope for that one was that we could pay for ~50% of a person’s time to do a combination of:
Strategic planning around community growth
Wrangling mentorship and advising for Outreachy interns (or other similar projects)
General community-facing work (with a focus on growth within the developer community, and creating pathways between the user and developer community)
Basically, somebody that could take the Mozilla Open Leadership Framework and start to apply it to the JupyterHub repositories. I think this could certainly be of value to the broader Jupyter ecosystem if others are interested!
Yeah totally - there’s a difference between “applying for funding related to Jupyter development” and “applying for funding on behalf of the project/community”. Presumably, the latter case should carry more “weight” associated with it, and as such there should be a clearer process for it to ensure community participation and buy-in.
As a note, when doing applications we can add collaborators with R or R/W permission. I would suggest we that when funded via numFOCUS we at least give R access to them to make it easier for them to see the state of the proposals.
In case it’s helpful, here’s a draft of the Google Doc I’m using to put together the other JupyterHub application. It’s roughly got the structure that we’ll need to fill out online (+ a few extra sections that are specific to that application which you can ignore): Full Application - JupyterHub Community Developer CZI EOSS - Google Docs
Hey folks @isabela-pf, myself and others are working on the accessibility proposal (link to follow I promise) we realised there are some bits we do not have the whole info for. For example
List active and recent (previous two calendar years) financial or in-kind support for the software project(s), including duration, amount in USD, and source of funding. Include in this section any previous funding for these software projects received from CZI (maximum of 250 words) ~1 page
Who would be the best people to reach out to for this info? Or is this public somewhere? Would it make sense to have a collective doc to have all this info in? cc/ @willingc for visibility and ideas
Please submit this request to the Jupyter Steering Council via the Jupyter Governance repo and posing this same question. I also recommend opening a second issue asking for formal approval of the proposal by the Steering Council in a public vote. I would direct specific questions to @fperez. Thanks.
Hey all - in case it helps others put together these (or other) applications, I put together a short list of Jupyter grants that I know of. Please edit/add/comment as you like, I hope it’s helpful:
