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't write line items for 'donations' in your grant budget). And most funders are excited about discrete projects, https://twitter.com/melissaekline/status/1264181384991649792

...or maybe in funding new infrastructure (when it's exciting!), but keeping the lights on is much less attractive. (I obviously didn't invent this problem, here's an article:
https://kula.uvic.ca/articles/10.5334/kula.7/)

I 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's my point? I'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' time) seem like an attractive and exciting long-term thing to fund?

Me: <a really great pitch>

Foundations/Universities/Gov'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 'stunt budgeting': 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's an effective form of collective action.