My concern is less about actionability and more about practicality. Money is fungible, so it's easier for the company to donate. Providing in-kind donations is

My concern is less about actionability and more about practicality. Money is fungible, so it's easier for the company to donate. Providing in-kind donations is more expensive for them because then they would need to hire people who have the right skills to contribute to that product, regardless of whether they have any independent need for that skill set. Money is fungible, so it's also easier for the project to work with. Need to shift some resources toward server hosting? Can't do that if your incoming donations are engineer-hours instead of money. Need to hire a lawyer because some patent troll is on your case? Too bad, no law firms are donating lawyer-hours this year. Need someone with skill in writing compilers? Too bad, the incoming donations are all time from front-end developers. The Cathedral and the Bazaar, for what it's worth, was not talking about funding models. It was talking about whether the general public is allowed to see development branches in real time and submit their own changes, or only gets to see source tarballs for official releases. Nowadays there are very few true "cathedral" projects that generally don't accept incoming patch submissions from the public. The most noteworthy one I can think of offhand is SQLite.