written on Thursday, September 19, 2024

Both last week at London tech leaders and this week at the Open Source Summit in Vienna I engaged in various discussions about pledging money to Open Source. At Sentry we have been funding our Open Source dependencies for a few years now and we're trying to encourage others to do the same.

It’s not an easy ask, of course. One quite memorable point raised was what I would call “accidental spending”. The story goes like this: an engineering team spins up a bunch of Kubernetes machines. As the fleet grows in scale some inefficiencies creep in. To troubleshoot or optimize, additional services such as load balancers, firewalls, cloud provider log services, etc. are provisioned with minimal discussion. Initially none of that was part of the plan, but ever so slightly for every computing resource, some extra stuff is paid on top creating largely hidden costs. Ideally all of that pays off (after all, hopefully by debugging quicker you reduce that downtime, by having that load balancer you can auto scale and save on unused computing resources etc.). But often, the payoff feels abstract and are hard to quantify.

I call those purchases “accidental” because they are proportional to the deployed infrastructure and largely acting like a tax on top of everything. Only after a while does the scale of that line item become apparent. On the other hand intentionally purchasing a third party system is a very intentional act. It's very deliberate, requiring conversations and more scrutiny is placed for putting a credit card into a new service. Companies providing services understand this and are positioning themselves accordingly. Their play could be to make the case that that their third party solution is better, cheaper etc.

Open Source funding could be seen through both of these lenses. Today, in many ways, pledging money to Open Source is a very intentional decision. It requires discussions, persuasion and justification. The purpose and the pay-off is not entirely clear. Companies are not used to the idea of funding Open Source and they don't have a strong model to reason about these investments. Likewise many Open Source projects themselves also don't have a good way of dealing with money and might lack the governance to handle funds effectively. After all many of these projects are run by individuals and not formal organizations.

Companies are unlikely to fund something without understanding the return on investment. One better understood idea is to turn that one “random person in Nebraska” maintaining a critical dependency into a well-organized team with good op-sec. But for that to happen, funding needs to scale from pennies to dollars, making it really worthwhile.

My colleague Chad Whitacre floated an idea: what if platforms like AWS or GitHub started splitting the check? By adding a line-item to the invoices of their customers to support Open Source finding. It would turn giving to Open Source into more of a tax like thing. That might leverage the general willingness to just pile up on things to do good things. If we all pay 3% on top of our Cloud or SaaS bills to give to Open Source this would quickly add up.

While I’m intrigued by the idea, I also have my doubts that this would work. It goes back to the problem mentioned earlier that some Open Source projects just have no governance or are not even ready to receive money. How much value you put on a dependency is also very individual. Just because an NPM package has a lot of downloads does not necessarily mean it's critical to the mission of the company. rrweb is a good example for us at Sentry. It sits at the core of our session replay product but since we we vendor a pinned fork, you would not see rrweb in your dependency tree. We also value that package more than some algorithm would be able to determine about how important that package is to us.

So the challenge with the tax — as appealing as it is — is that it might make the “purchase decision” of funding Open Source easier, but it would probably make the distribution problem much worse. Deliberate, intentional funding is key. At least for the moment.

Still, it’s worth considering. The “what if” is a powerful idea. Using a restaurant analogy, the “open-source tax” is like the mandatory VAT or health surcharge on your bill: no choice is involved. Another model could be more like the tip suggestions on a receipt offering a choice but also guidance on what’s appropriate to contribute.

The current model we propose with our upcoming Open Source Pledge is to suggest like a tip what you should give in relation to your developer work force. Take the average number of full time employees you have over a year, multiply this by 2000. That is the amount in US dollars you should give to your Open Source dependencies.

That sounds like a significant amount! But let's put this in relation for a typical developer you employ: that's less than a fifth of what you would pay for FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act in the US) in the US. That's less than the communal tax you would pay in Austria. I'm sure you can think of similar payroll taxes in your country.

I believe that after step one of recognizing there is a funding problem follows an obvious step two: having a baseline funding amount that stands in relation to your business (you own or are a part of) of what the amount should be. Using the size of the development team as a metric offers an objective and quantifiable starting point. The beauty in my mind of the developer count in particular is that it's somewhat independently observable from both the outside and inside [1]. The latter is important! It creates a baseline for people within a company to start a conversation about Open Source funding.

If you have feedback on this, particular the pledge I invite you mail me or to leave a comment on the Pledge's issue tracker.

This entry was tagged thoughts