Funding Strategy Playbook

Playbook for maintainers and pracitioners to collaborate on the best outcomes based on project goals, geographic location and need.

Process Milestones

Note: that some milestones may not currently apply to a project (for example, there are no existing contributors to sponsor), but documentation for future consideration is encouraged.

1. Kick off meeting: Maintainer meets with OSS Wishlist admin and pracitioner (whether sponsor employee or verified pracitioner) to align on goals and timeline.
2. Funding Readiness & Accessibility
3. Funding Diversification & Strategic Planning
4. Financial Governance & Accountability
5. Contributor & Maintainer Sustainability Support
6. Wrap up meeting: Maintainer meets with OSS Wishlist maintainer and pracitioner
7. Survey (maintainer and pracitioner)

Resources

• Open Funding (@ralphtheninja)
• 2024 Funding in Open Source Report
• Contribute your resource

Funding Strategy – Peer Review Rubric

Purpose: Evaluate how well the project is positioned to attract, manage, and sustain funding to support long-term maintenance and community impact.

Scoring Scale per Criterion:
0 = Not present
1 = Minimal / vague
2 = Adequate but informal
3 = Strong and actively used
4 = Fully mature, transparent, and value-aligned

---

A. Funding Readiness & Accessibility (0–12 pts)

Criterion	Indicators of Excellence	Score
A1. Funding Channels Established	Donation/sponsor platforms active (e.g., GitHub Sponsors, Open Collective, foundations).	0–4
A2. Clear Value Proposition / Need Declaration	Articulated problem statement, sustainability needs, impact narrative.	0–4
A3. Costs & Funding Goals Identified	Maintainer hours, hosting, security, community support — resourcing clearly scoped.	0–4

---

B. Funding Diversification & Strategic Planning (0–12 pts)

Criterion	Indicators of Excellence	Score
B1. Grants & Public Funding Strategy	Track list of grant opportunities; capacity to apply (templates, owners assigned).	0–4
B2. Corporate/Institutional Partnerships	Potential partners mapped; clear alignment with ecosystem dependencies.	0–4
B3. Revenue / Support Model Flexibility	Multiple options evaluated (e.g., service contracts, hosted infra, sponsorship tiers).	0–4

---

C. Financial Governance & Accountability (0–12 pts)

Criterion	Indicators of Excellence	Score
C1. Transparent Financial Management	Budgets and spending published; conflict-of-interest protections in place.	0–4
C2. Criteria for Allocating Funds	Funding distribution policies documented; fair access; align with project priorities.	0–4
C3. Reporting & Impact Evidence	Demonstrates how funds improve security, sustainability, or community outcomes.	0–4

---

D. Contributor & Maintainer Sustainability Support (0–12 pts)

Criterion	Indicators of Excellence	Score
D1. Compensation Pathways	Clear eligibility for paid tasks, bounties, or leadership funding.	0–4
D2. Diversity & Equity in Funding Access	Small/first-time contributors supported; regional access barriers addressed.	0–4
D3. Minimizing Administrative Burden	Fiscal hosting or foundation support reduces overhead on maintainers.	0–4

---

✅ Total Score: / 48 pts

Rating	Descriptor
44–48	Excellent — High financial sustainability and resilience
36–43	Strong — Well-prepared for funding with minor improvements
24–35	Adequate — Funding pathways exist but underdeveloped
12–23	Weak — Funding gaps risk maintenance continuity
0–11	Not Viable — Not positioned for sustainable support

---

Reviewer Notes

• Strengths of funding strategy:
• Major sustainability risks:
• Most impactful next step:
• Foundation / partner readiness? Yes / Needs work