Adding a fundedBy key?

[bzg]

The French OSPO at the Interministerial Digital Directorate uses the PublicCode standard for "awesome" projects it promotes here: https://code.gouv.fr/fr/awesome/ (and https://github.com/codegouvfr/awesome-codegouvfr/)

Upstream publiccode.yml files include a custom fundedBy key to advertize Fr public institutions currently funding the project. This complements information in the maintainance section, answering the question: "Who is paying for the maintenance and development of this project right now?"

What do you think of adding fundedBy to the standard?

If we are misusing the standard by adding this key, how should we advertize this information instead?

[bfabio]

Hey @bzg, I think it's a really good idea, as there's not really a way to specify it in the current version, unless we consider longDescription, but then anything goes.

Were you thinking of a maintenance/fundedBy key, with a list of strings for each funding entity?

[bzg]

Thanks for your answer!

I was initially thinking of a top-level fundedBy key, since maintenance seems to be dedicated to... well, maintenance, not development. But maybe I misunderstand the scope of maintenance - either way, no strong opinion here.

As for content, I suggest a list of strings to start with, as long as it can evolve into an array later, with each entry consisting of `[entity name, entity URL, funding start date, funding end date, ...].

WDYT?

[bfabio]

Thanks for your answer!

I was initially thinking of a top-level fundedBy key, since maintenance seems to be dedicated to... well, maintenance, not development. But maybe I misunderstand the scope of maintenance - either way, no strong opinion here.

I see where you're coming from. I think you're right and yeah, no strong opinion here either.

As for content, I suggest a list of strings to start with, as long as it can evolve into an array later, with each entry consisting of `[entity name, entity URL, funding start date, funding end date, ...].

WDYT?

If we're thinking about multiple attributes for each single entity, I think it'd be wise to use an object from the start, even if it initially has just one attribute, something like:

fundedBy:
  - name: Bureau of Overcomplicated Paperwork
  - name: Department of Redundancy Department

so that we can expand it later while maintaining backwards compatibility.

[bzg]

fundedBy:
  - name: Bureau of Overcomplicated Paperwork
  - name: Department of Redundancy Department

seems indeed good enough and a good start. Thanks!

[bfabio]

@bzg care to make a pull request?

[bzg]

Sure, I will - after my holiday :)

[bzg]

Here is a proposal: #198

I created a new "organisation" object, trying to keep it minimal, neutral and not redundant with that of Contractor but maybe all this requires more thinking.