What is ClearlyDefined

  1. Harvesting and scanning of open source projects
    1. retrieve licensing information, source code, and copyright information
    2. current collections and accuracy of information is dependent on scanners
    3. "bots" result in missing or limited data (license, location, etc.)
    4. to increase accuracy and usefulness, projects listed in ClearlyDefined should be reviewed by people, i.e. "curators.
  2. Curators
    1. Curators (i,.e real people) review results of scanners to confirm/update data and content.
    2. Ideally curators are experienced in both, the technologies associated with the open source software, and the projects/communities themselves.
    3. Discoveries, corrections, extensions will be contributed upstream back to projects
    4. Curators can/will update the project data/content locally (within the project repo), or a can submit to/through ClearlyDefined which will then push upstream through a pull request to the project maintainer(s).
  3. Scope
    1. ClearlyDefined is intended for both large and small projects
    2. Curation should be available for one-off activities, individual efforts, and small groups.

Platform/portal engagement

Use Case #1 (Actor: Curator)

  1. An interested participant, goes to ClearlyDefined to "browse" the archives current components (https://clearlydefined.io/definitions).
  2. The user ("Curator") then enters, "Moodle" in the search field, returning a variety of licensing and related documentation.
  3. The Curator identifies an error, or missing data.
  4. The Curator modifies the data and submits the suggested improvement to the ClearlyDefined team for review.
  5. If the ClearlyDefined team approves of the change, the Curator is sent a "midro-payment"

Use Case #2 (Actor: ClearlyDefined)

  1. The ClearlyDefined team identifies a project in the archive for improvement.
  2. The ClearlyDefined team includes a "promotional" icon to the project's "definition" to announce that Curation is funded.
  3. See Use Case #1.

Research on Bug Bounties

Mozilla

Facebook

Potential Providers

OpenCollective

  • OpenCollective
    • Introduced by Carol and Jeff
    • 8/8/2018: Phone call between Pia Mancini <pia@opencollective.com>, and Patrick Masson and Carol Smith to learn about and assess OpenCollective
      • Initial take was positive
        • Having another service provider (i.e. not using Rippling) will add complexity to our financials/accounting and another vendor to manage
        • After discussions would still like to talk with Mozilla to see how they have operationalized their bug bounty and micro-funding.
      • OpenCollective provides
        • a way to pay invoices and manage the tax issues (for example, they have a bot that triggers tax forms when a $600 threshold is reached.
        • an accounting back-end that helps reconcile activities, and invoices.
        • manual interface for payment approvals by a project maintainer
          • might be a nice check (internal control) on payments and reconciliation.
      • Costs
        • OpenCollective allows non-profits to use the payment platform (for the micro-payments) at no charge.
          • No charge for making payments (from OSI to ClearlyDefined curators).
        • Fees are only assessed when payments are made to an organization from an external donor.
        • Three models exist:
          • if OpenCollective serves as both the fiscal sponsor (i.e. Apple contributes a tax-educable donation to OpenCollective for the ClearlyDefined project), and provides the platform for collecting / managing ClearlyDefined funds (i.e. Apple's donation to the ClearlyDefined project is made / managed via the OpenCollective platform), OpenCollective would take 10%:
            • 5% for serving as the Fiscal Sponsor, and,
            • 5% for use of the donation platform that collects/manages the donations.
          • If OSI serves as the fiscal sponsor, (i.e. Apple contributes a tax-educable donation to the OSI for the ClearlyDefined project), but OpenCollective, provides the platform for collecting / managing funds for ClearlyDefined (i.e. Apple's donation to the ClearlyDefined project is made / managed via the OpenCollective platform), OpenCollective would take 5%:
            • OpenCollective would charge that 5% for using the OpenCollective platform to collect/manage donations.
            • OpenCollective's 5% fee for fiscal sponsorship would not apply (because they are not serving as ClearlyDefine's fiscal sponsor).
          • If OSI serves as both the fiscal sponsor (i.e. Apple contributes a tax-educable donation to OpenCollective for the ClearlyDefined project), and provides the platform for collecting / managing ClearlyDefined funds (i.e. Apple's donation to the ClearlyDefined project is made / managed via OSI), OpenCOllective would take 0%.
            • OpenCollective's 5% fee for collecting / managing funding through their platform would not apply (because we are not collecting / managing ClearlyDefine's funds via OpenCollective's platform).
            • OpenCollective's 5% fee for fiscal sponsorship would not apply (because they are not serving as ClearlyDefine's fiscal sponsor).
        • Additional information: https://github.com/opencollective/opencollective/wiki/Open-Collective-platform-fees
    • Open questions,
      • Can OpenCollective's technology/services be integrated into ClearlyDefined's workflow?
        • Some "business process planning" may need to be done to understand the interactions of actors and technology in ClearlyDefined. 
    • Testing

Rippling

  • Rippling
    • Introduced by Phyllis (thread).

Assessment Rubric

FeatureOpen CollectiveRippling
 Integration / output / workflow with Quickbooks  
   
   
Tags:
Created by Patrick Masson on 2018.08.02 at 11:56:14 PDT
    

Submit feedback regarding this wiki to webmaster@opensource.org

This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license
XWiki Enterprise 7.4.2 - Documentation