Coordinating CZI EOSS applications across the community

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).

Here are the efforts that I know of:

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.


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,…).

And a rough montage of what it could look like in JLAB (I can have it work in a normal browser and need to write a Jlab extension).

1 Like

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.

cc @ellisonbg @fperez

1 Like

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.

By the way:

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!

1 Like

Just a note per @SylvainCorlay 's point above - I don’t believe there are any community guidelines about what process individuals/groups should follow for this kind of “for the open source project” funding. I’ve opened up this issue to track the item + discussion: When can projects apply "on behalf of Jupyter" for funding? · Issue #96 · jupyter/governance · GitHub

Thanks. Just to clarify, I think that anyone should be able to apply to any source of funding to contribute to Jupyter.

However, to present this an an official application by Project Jupyter, there should be an official endorsement by the project governance.

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.

1 Like