Proposal: Stipend for important initiatives like the stable spec

[jviotti]

On the last community meeting, we discussed that it would be interesting to offer a small one-off stipend, out of the OpenCollective, directed towards very important work within the JSON Schema organisation, such as the stable spec release.

The idea is two-fold:

• While we don't have a lot of money, give a big "thank you" sponsorship to key people driving this like @gregsdennis and @jdesrosiers , who are purely volunteering. JSON Schema can at least pay for your coffee for a while 😅
• By spending a bit of money on an important initiative, it will let us polish the funding storytelling. We can then say: "hey, we are spending the little money we have to fund very important things, would you please contribute to the fund?", which is a much better story than the current one: "throw money at the OpenCollective for no clear direct outcome and we'll put your logo in the website". Setting a precedent on how we want to spend donation money and actually spend it a bit could to wonders in attracting more funding

Any suggestions on the amount? Maybe $500 USD each is doable given how critical this work is?

[jviotti]

/vote

[git-vote]

Vote created

@jviotti has called for a vote on Proposal: Stipend for important initiatives like the stable spec (#24).

The members of the following teams have binding votes:

Team
@json-schema-org/tsc

Non-binding votes are also appreciated as a sign of support!

How to vote

You can cast your vote by reacting to this comment. The following reactions are supported:

In favor	Against	Abstain
👍	👎	👀

Please note that voting for multiple options is not allowed and those votes won't be counted.

The vote will be open for 28days. It will pass if at least 75% of the users with binding votes vote In favor 👍. Once it's closed, results will be published here as a new comment.

[jdesrosiers]

I think this is important to do for all the reasons, Juan mentioned.

However, if it's going to have the affect Juan talked about, I think it needs to be a recurring thing, not a one-off. If it's just a one-off, we can't tell donors that their money is going toward supporting spec development because we only did that one time and we don't know what their future donation will be used for.

What we've been saying is that we need to spend the money to make the case for people to donate. So, let's spend it. If I'm reading OpenCollective correctly, it looks like $500/quarter for two people is within budget and gets us using the majority of our budget with a modest buffer. That way we can say we're using our funds and can make the case for soliciting more.

We also talked about a grant-based system, which would probably be a more efficient use of funds. We can periodically determine how much money we have to distribute and distribute it based on need for important work. So, doing a one-off payment now is fine, but something recurring is necessary at some point.

We should probably schedule a meeting to go over our OpenCollective and determine how much we can/should be distributing that we aren't and make sure we're using it for something.

[gregsdennis]

Showing how the money flows is a great insight!

[jviotti]

I love the recurring idea!

[git-vote]

Vote status

So far 44.44% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 75%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
4	0	0	5

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
Julian	In favor	2025-04-23 15:41:05.0 +00:00:00
jdesrosiers	In favor	2025-04-23 18:53:06.0 +00:00:00
jviotti	In favor	2025-04-23 15:34:01.0 +00:00:00
gregsdennis	In favor	2025-04-23 19:48:28.0 +00:00:00
@karenetheridge	Pending
@mwadams	Pending
@awwright	Pending
@Relequestual	Pending
@benjagm	Pending

[git-vote]

Vote status

So far 66.67% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 75%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
6	0	0	3

Binding votes (6)

User	Vote	Timestamp
gregsdennis	In favor	2025-04-23 19:48:28.0 +00:00:00
benjagm	In favor	2025-04-30 16:09:01.0 +00:00:00
jviotti	In favor	2025-04-23 15:34:01.0 +00:00:00
Julian	In favor	2025-04-23 15:41:05.0 +00:00:00
jdesrosiers	In favor	2025-04-23 18:53:06.0 +00:00:00
mwadams	In favor	2025-04-30 16:03:33.0 +00:00:00
@karenetheridge	Pending
@awwright	Pending
@Relequestual	Pending

[git-vote]

Vote status

So far 66.67% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 75%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
6	0	0	3

Binding votes (6)

User	Vote	Timestamp
Julian	In favor	2025-04-23 15:41:05.0 +00:00:00
jviotti	In favor	2025-04-23 15:34:01.0 +00:00:00
gregsdennis	In favor	2025-04-23 19:48:28.0 +00:00:00
jdesrosiers	In favor	2025-04-23 18:53:06.0 +00:00:00
mwadams	In favor	2025-04-30 16:03:33.0 +00:00:00
benjagm	In favor	2025-04-30 16:09:01.0 +00:00:00
@karenetheridge	Pending
@awwright	Pending
@Relequestual	Pending

[Relequestual]

/check-vote

[git-vote]

Vote status

So far 77.78% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 75%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
7	0	0	2

Binding votes (7)

User	Vote	Timestamp
benjagm	In favor	2025-04-30 16:09:01.0 +00:00:00
jdesrosiers	In favor	2025-04-23 18:53:06.0 +00:00:00
Relequestual	In favor	2025-05-19 8:43:49.0 +00:00:00
Julian	In favor	2025-04-23 15:41:05.0 +00:00:00
jviotti	In favor	2025-04-23 15:34:01.0 +00:00:00
gregsdennis	In favor	2025-04-23 19:48:28.0 +00:00:00
mwadams	In favor	2025-04-30 16:03:33.0 +00:00:00
@karenetheridge	Pending
@awwright	Pending

[git-vote]

Vote closed

The vote passed! 🎉

77.78% of the users with binding vote were in favor and 0.00% were against (passing threshold: 75%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
7	0	0	2

Binding votes (7)

User	Vote	Timestamp
@jdesrosiers	In favor	2025-04-23 18:53:06.0 +00:00:00
@Relequestual	In favor	2025-05-19 8:43:49.0 +00:00:00
@Julian	In favor	2025-04-23 15:41:05.0 +00:00:00
@jviotti	In favor	2025-04-23 15:34:01.0 +00:00:00
@benjagm	In favor	2025-04-30 16:09:01.0 +00:00:00
@gregsdennis	In favor	2025-04-23 19:48:28.0 +00:00:00
@mwadams	In favor	2025-04-30 16:03:33.0 +00:00:00