The "open-source funding crisis" is simply the crisis of not knowing how to reliably organize our society in any way other than for-profit companies but wanting

The "open-source funding crisis" is simply the crisis of not knowing how to reliably organize our society in any way other than for-profit companies but wanting to direct our useful energies at something other than propping up those for-profit companies. I get paid well over $130K a year, and if I manage to get 12 issues, 25 comments, and 29 pull requests to open source projects, that's a good year. Where does my salary come from? What do I actually do with the rest of my time? The world has no visibility into that. (The answer is - a hedge fund. Turns out there is no hedge fund software engineer funding crisis.) There's nothing wrong with getting paid $130K a year to not work on open source. There's specifically nothing wrong with getting paid $130K a year from the organizations who you want to be funding open source. Babel's highest sponsorship tier (https://opencollective.com/babel https://opencollective.com/babel), at $24K a year each, comes from Airbnb, AMP (Google), Trivago, and Adobe. Other top contributors listed on that page include Salesforce and Facebook. Do we complain when those organizations spend well over $130K a year on not-open-source? Do we complain when those organizations spend well over $130K on internal projects that just completely fail? I'm starting to think the answer is that we should, in fact, complain. As the linked Twitter thread points out, Babel isn't running out of money because $130K is too high a salary - it's running out of money because the lack of visible results endangers their ability to get future funding. But the amount of funding they're getting is scraps from any of these organizations that, I'm sure, get way more than $24K/year value from Babel. If you have a thousand software engineers, and a piece of software makes them all just 1% more productive, its value to you is ten full-time developer salaries. And all these companies are more than happy to employ thousands of software engineers, plus hundreds of managers and other human infrastructure to support those engineers. And they understand that sometimes those engineers don't deliver value - usually because they were told to work on the wrong thing - and that's a correctable problem and you keep paying those engineers while you correct it. If they have a question about whether someone is doing the right work (maybe they're doing good work, but it's not what was agreed on paper - it certainly seems like Henry is doing a lot of code reviews and publicity work?), having skilled managers is how you figure out whether that work is nonetheless worthwhile, or the engineer needs to be told to shift their focus. We understand that having managers, who are also paid more than $130K/year, is important to a functioning engineering organization. (Usually they're traditional line managers, but even at organizations that reject traditional managers, you still have senior contributors whose value is primarily in how they guide and advise other people's work and not so much in their own work.) It may be true that an open-source project's future is in danger because they've employed one person and that one person isn't visibly productive, but the mistake here is on the expectation that this could ever work. Imagine if Adobe employed one engineer to work on Photoshop, discovered they were not terribly productive in terms of new features implemented in Photoshop, and then worried because they'd have trouble begging the CFO for funds for a second engineer. We would see this as ridiculous. If you want to see continued development on Photoshop, you need a team. If the senior management of a tech-driven organization refuses to proactively staff an engineering team with more people than strictly needed, no one would think to beg. We'd just know this management is incompetent and short-sighted and not worth bargaining with. (And, like Babel, Photoshop has been around for many years and does its job just fine. In a sense it doesn't need new features. But I'm sure that Adobe has way more than one engineer on the project, nonetheless.) We need to figure out how to stop begging for scraps from companies that regularly fund hundreds of millions of dollars in development for code that only benefits themselves, and start saying, look, this open-source project brings you millions of dollars in business value per year. $24K is a joke. We're not going to try to justify the additional value of a second contributor, when you've got ten highly-paid people on the committee deciding whether to give $12K or $24K. Give us millions of dollars, then you might see some results.