Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Fund Public Interest Tech

prototypefund.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#31

Post by greatgib »

jacquesm wrote: post #7
greatgib wrote: post #2

Awesome fund. Sad that it is limited to German residents and not to all Europeans!

There is the EIF, of which many of these local funds are recipients. Which country are you in?

I would like something like that in France.

The point is that there are plenty 'national subventions' one can apply in local European countries. But I have never seen one with rules so 'down to Earth'/'realistic'. Like the range of subject is large. They don't care if you are an individual or a registered entity. They don't require to have some credentials like being a student or an academic. They work on the idea of giving multiple small sums instead of few big ones. Totally oriented on the dev open source software.

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#32

Post by DarylZero »

mellifluousbox wrote: post #20
DarylZero wrote: post #11

Wish they would fund projects that already exist and that have years of unpaid effort already delivered. Instead they fund a bunch of prototypes that will probably go nowhere.

That's factually incorrect. Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features. Mastodon was released in 2016 and has more than 26k GitHub stars, so is quite clearly way beyond being a prototype.

> Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features

Yeah and that's insulting. As if they had already been compensated for what features came before.

Why make the funding conditional on new features? When someone has already put in so much unpaid labor. Reward the already-contributed labor!

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#33

Post by DarylZero »

Xylakant wrote: post #25
ctrayx wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not one of linguistic subtleties, but whether the government should fund boondoggles at all. While probably, at least judging by the pictures of the funded projects, engaging in age discrimination.

> The issue is not one of linguistic subtleties, but whether the government should fund boondoggles at all. Most early tech and prototypes are considered “boondoggles” at first. Some of them are. Some of them not. Some of them may seem so to you, but I can tell that I have used at least a handful of the projects on the list and have personally supported at least one (without knowing that they’re prototype fund funded…

We don't need a bunch more prototypes, but we do need to compensate some of the people who have already put in a lot of unpaid labor.

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#34

Post by Closi »

DarylZero wrote: post #32
mellifluousbox wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's factually incorrect. Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features. Mastodon was released in 2016 and has more than 26k GitHub stars, so is quite clearly way beyond being a prototype.

> Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features Yeah and that's insulting. As if they had already been compensated for what features came before. Why make the funding conditional on new features? When someone has already put in so much unpaid labor. Reward the already-contributed labor!

> Reward the already-contributed labor!

It’s an innovation fund, not a ‘give away free money to those who deserve it’ fund.

Their aim is to be to use the funding to improve or introduce new software that contributes to the public good, so paying developers for stuff that they already developed doesn’t make direct sense considering their stated goal.

The way they are allocating funding has the added benefit that they can track the impact of the fund, which will help them secure the funding for the whole fund in the long term (I.e. they can list exactly what impact they have made on projects rather than just vaguely state that they have had an impact on some projects by donating to them).

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#35

Post by DarylZero »

Closi wrote: post #34
DarylZero wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features Yeah and that's insulting. As if they had already been compensated for what features came before. Why make the funding conditional on new features? When someone has already put in so much unpaid labor. Reward the already-contributed labor!

> Reward the already-contributed labor! It’s an innovation fund, not a ‘give away free money to those who deserve it’ fund. Their aim is to be to use the funding to improve or introduce new software that contributes to the public good, so paying developers for stuff that they already developed doesn’t make direct sense considering their stated goal. The way they are allocating funding has the added benefit that they…

You're basically just telling me what they're doing, as if description were justification.

> It’s an [x] fund, not a [y] fund

Yes, that's exactly the problem I objected to -- not something I need to be told.

> Their aim is

Their aim is wrong. It would be much better to pay the back wages than pretend it's jubilee just so they can impose strings.

But I guess it's hard to resist, when you have the money, to exercise the power.

> they can track the impact of the fund

This is the only actual point you made, and it's weak. Who cares? They can't objectively judge the social impact of the software regardless, they can only judge whether the technical goals were accomplished. Useless either way when they're choosing to fund the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#36

Post by Closi »

DarylZero wrote: post #35
Closi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reward the already-contributed labor! It’s an innovation fund, not a ‘give away free money to those who deserve it’ fund. Their aim is to be to use the funding to improve or introduce new software that contributes to the public good, so paying developers for stuff that they already developed doesn’t make direct sense considering their stated goal. The way they are allocating funding has the added benefit that they…

You're basically just telling me what they're doing, as if description were justification. > It’s an [x] fund, not a [y] fund Yes, that's exactly the problem I objected to -- not something I need to be told. > Their aim is Their aim is wrong. It would be much better to pay the back wages than pretend it's jubilee just so they can impose strings. But I guess it's hard to resist, when you have the money, to exercise th…

> Their aim is wrong. It would be much better to pay the back wages than pretend it's jubilee just so they can impose strings.

Well why don't they just give the money to water infrastructure in Africa then? Surely that's a more worthy aim if we get to decide what their aim should be for them? Or their aim could be to help teach coding to the young, that's just as valid.

Their aim is to develop new tech, thus asking people to pitch what they would develop if given funding seems like a sensible approach.

This is also funded by money the German Government has allocated for R&D, so it has also been budgeted for 'new tech' rather than just rewarding historical contributors through donations. If the prototype foundation aimed to reward historical contributions, their current funding likely wouldn't exist, and if they don't show how they contribute towards R&D then the funding won't exist in the future.

Besides, Why is their aim wrong? Should there be no funding for people who want to create new public interest tech?

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#37

Post by hansel_der »

DarylZero wrote: post #9
hansel_der wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aka 95k a year, which is just short of the magic six-figures i guess for political reasons.

Most of these kinds of funds aren't enough to be a salary at all, intended as social validation tokens for people who don't even need money.

exactly

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#38

Post by hansel_der »

Xylakant wrote: post #17
DarylZero wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these kinds of funds aren't enough to be a salary at all, intended as social validation tokens for people who don't even need money.

This works out to just shy of 8000 EUR per month, enough to fund two people on an acceptable salary for that time. Folks with a sufficiently high profile could earn more on the open market, but you can live of that in most regions of germany.

just for scale: most ppl (also families) live of considerably less than 4k a month in most parts of germany.

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#39

Post by riedel »

DarylZero wrote: post #32
mellifluousbox wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's factually incorrect. Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features. Mastodon was released in 2016 and has more than 26k GitHub stars, so is quite clearly way beyond being a prototype.

> Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features Yeah and that's insulting. As if they had already been compensated for what features came before. Why make the funding conditional on new features? When someone has already put in so much unpaid labor. Reward the already-contributed labor!

I think it is important to understand that this is a "fund" that is constructed with a strict frame of established public funding rules. It is amazing to see that it actually works as part of the German research and innovation funding at all, which normally requires a considerable amount of own money to be eligible (at least on paper which really makes it unfit for seed funding or developer funding). I think is a starting point and should deserve credit for this. On the other hand government should actually use open source and pay the ecosystem for it by paying developers for maintenance instead of spending billions on big tech.

Re: We Fund Public Interest Tech

#40

Post by jacquesm »

greatgib wrote: post #31
jacquesm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the EIF, of which many of these local funds are recipients. Which country are you in?

I would like something like that in France. The point is that there are plenty 'national subventions' one can apply in local European countries. But I have never seen one with rules so 'down to Earth'/'realistic'. Like the range of subject is large. They don't care if you are an individual or a registered entity. They don't require to have some credentials like being a student or an academic. They work on the idea of…

France is a serious problem case. Getting funded there from official sources depends more on your pedigree than anything else. Also, the funding there tends to come with some serious strings attached. If I were to operate a start-up in France I would look outside of France for funding.
Post reply on HN