Hey Jef,
I really like the idea and thank you for bringing this forward. After reading it (and I probably will need to read it a few more times) here are some thoughts:
- the “increased bureaucracy”: for FESCO could become a bottle neck and then people spending a lot of time phrasing their proposal
- what will be done if a project is unstable / insecure? Will there be check mechanisms (which depending on the tech might be tricky) - bear with me here, there might be an easy answer to it but I am a tech noob
- The “Curated” stage is designed as a reprieve for projects that are technically sound but lack community interest or “market fit.” –> we may end up with projects being on “life support” only.
- Market fit / does it solve a problem for users –> this seems to me very subjective, espec in the open source context. How could we ensure that possible unpopular topics have all an equal chance, espec if we would look at ‘new’/young contributors
- The addition of a “Maintenance Review” means that even after a technology is integrated, it is subject to periodic audits and potential “demotion” back to the Curation stage. And who will ensure the infrastructure is maintained without adding to tech debt / responsibilities/ burn out
- what are success criteria for this project and when would it be stopped? Where do we hit break even?
I have no solution to these questions nor an idea - I am sorry for that - but I hope for some ideas from everyone in the community…. or maybe you have some answers. Or maybe we do not need answers to all of them.
In general I think it is worth to experiment with this concept and I really appreciate that you took the time to think about this and bringing it forward. If anything is confusing please let me know. I also apologize for any potential typos.
Cheers,
Julia