> Distributing based on these criteria means most of the funding will go to those who already receive most of the funding. It depends on the strategy used. If

> Distributing based on these criteria means most of the funding will go to those who already receive most of the funding. It depends on the strategy used. If we define "popularity" as "number of our projects that depend on this OSS project", then the distribution should be fair, and projects like core-js would be well compensated. This could all be automated, and the popularity ranking could be fixed and used by default, so that employees could add additional funding by voting on their most used and loved projects. I think both approaches would work well. In any case, my suggestion was to create a company-wide OSS fund to begin with, which most companies don't even bother with. The strategy of how they're appropriated can always be improved after that.