But for real, individual donations by researchers from their personal funds is a weird way to keep critical scientific infrastructure alive (and I think you can& #39;t write line items for & #39;donations& #39; in your grant budget). And most funders are excited about discrete projects, https://twitter.com/melissaekline/status/1264181384991649792">https://twitter.com/melissaek...

...or maybe in funding new infrastructure (when it& #39;s exciting!), but keeping the lights on is much less attractive. (I obviously didn& #39;t invent this problem, here& #39;s an article:
https://kula.uvic.ca/articles/10.5334/kula.7/)

I">https://kula.uvic.ca/articles/... am pretty stressed out about keeping open science efforts alive! Lots of...

...ppl are just flat out donating tons & tons of their time, in exchange for not enough credit/long-term career stability, and the projects that get big enough for paid staff still hit the challenges in that article.

What& #39;s my point? I& #39;m not sure, except does anyone have...

....have any really bright ideas about how to make not-for-profit open source scientific infrastructure (orgs, software, training programs, expert specialists& #39; time) seem like an attractive and exciting long-term thing to fund?

Me: <a really great pitch>

Foundations/Universities/Gov& #39;t funders/whoever: Wow!!! A service I take for granted kept existing for another month, and got incrementally better for users! And I get to take only partial credit! Yay!!

I sort of just want to promote & #39;stunt budgeting& #39;: go ahead and write your grants to cover:

- infrastructure/open source
- Actual time costs for data management, sharing etc.
- living wage for your staff
- carbon travel offsets
- etc.

...I think this would probably consternate a lot of people in various grant offices, but not sure if it& #39;s an effective form of collective action.