Create process docs to request infrastructure resources through OpenJSF partners

[christian-bromann]

Greetings 👋

the WebdriverIO project would like to request infrastructure resources to deploy applications on Vercel. All technicalities have been defined in #1022 and the Node.js project is already using Vercel services.

What would be the process for other OpenJSF projects look like?
Can we define this in the Readme.md or somewhere else?

Happy to make required contributions if someone guides me towards the right documentation for this!

[tobie]

My hunch would be to expand and generalize project-resources/REQUESTING_GITHUB_RESOURCES.md and the related directory.

[tobie]

Notes from today's CPC call:

@bensternthal will bring that up with the LF's IT team and report back here.

[vvalderrv]

All requests for services managed by The Linux Foundation on behalf of the OpenJS Foundation should be submitted via the Jira Service Desk. You can find the current documentation for requesting Linux Foundation IT support here:
https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/main/project-resources/requesting_LFIT_support.md

We’re expanding this documentation to include details on when to open a ticket, a step-by-step guide on submitting requests, and a list of our support services. We welcome any feedback to help ensure we’re providing the most useful documentation possible.

While we're working on these documentation changes and improvements, I'd be happy to walk you through the process of submitting a request.

I'm available via email at vvalderrama@linuxfoundation.org or the OpenJS Slack: valderrv.

Thank you,
Vanessa

[tobie]

Thanks for the input, @vvalderrv!

All, a few thoughts:

• it would be useful to have a menu of what's available through LF IT.
• why is GitHub-related support carved out and requires CPC approval?
• how are other services billed to the foundation and what budget envelope are they coming from?

[bensternthal]

@tobie good call outs.

why is GitHub-related support carved out and requires CPC approval?
I think we should revisit this doc, my thinking now is that Github services/costs should not require CPC approval, these requests should just to to the foundation to sort budget and billing. Do you agree?

how are other services billed to the foundation and what budget envelope are they coming from?
Depends on which services :) For IT infrastructure, like signing certificates, Github costs, odd AWS cost from 2003, we have a specific line item for these costs. We then have a different line item for the "people" costs, e.g. the IT folks who will now be helping with our infra. Let me know if that answers your question and/or if you want more detail in how I am thinking about this.

[tobie]

Overall, I think the following goals are valuable to pursue:

1. transparency and visibility of where the foundation's money is going; it's good for the foundation that folks understand what's actually spent directly on projects. That doesn't mean the CPC should need to be a bottleneck in the approval process, though. Maybe some kind of yearly or quarterly report should be enough.
2. streamline approval processes so that the CPC is only in the loop when absolutely necessary
3. provide consistency in how to ask for different resources, so that it's easy for projects to make requests regardless of what the resource is
4. make what's available clear, to guarantee fair access to all foundation projects and not just those in the know.

[rginn]

On the transparency front, I will do more on this in my NodeConf EU 2024 talk, which I can share after, titled: “Show me the money! Navigating funding strategies for open source sustainability.” I’ll share information on the OpenJS Foundation budget allocations, share updates on new revenue streams used to underwrite the myriad of activities required to sustain OpenJS projects, and hopefully spark a conversation on the alarming gaps in funding where global intervention and significant public/private investments are needed to sustain open source development.

[tobie]

Notes from today's CPC call:

@bensternthal has a follow-up call with the LF's IT team and will report back here.

[tobie]

Notes from this week's CPC call:

no discussion; ran out of time

[bensternthal]

IT submitted an update to the documents, please review here: #1397