Agency/docs/sites/active/opencollective-osarch.md
Ryan Schultz 107220aa9a docs: split site docs into platform + site layers; add changelog entries
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-11 16:01:05 -05:00

51 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown

# Site: Open Collective — OSArch
**Proposed by:** theoryshaw
**Date:** 2026-05-11
**Status:** Active — bootstrapped at genesis; community may remove or amend
([how site governance works](../../ARCHITECTURE.md#how-should-the-community-decide-which-sites-to-collect-from))
**Platform:** [Open Collective](../platforms/opencollective.md)
---
## What is this site?
The OSArch collective at `opencollective.com/osarch` is the primary funding channel for
the OSArch community. All contributions and expenses are publicly visible — who funded,
how much, and when.
---
## Inclusion criteria
| Criterion | Met? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Data is publicly accessible (no API key required) | Yes | All contributions publicly listed |
| Actively used by a meaningful portion of the community | Yes | Primary funding channel for OSArch |
| Activity represents genuine effort, not easily gamed | Partial | Financial contribution is real commitment, but money ≠ participation |
| Platform is stable enough to depend on | Yes | Open Collective is a well-established platform |
| Relevant to the community's actual work | Yes | Directly funds OSArch operations and projects |
---
## Score weight
Current weight in `config.yaml`: `funding_activity: 0.1`
Intentionally low — financial contribution is meaningful but should not outweigh
sustained participation.
---
## Concerns or open questions
- See [Funding signals: merged or separate?](../../ARCHITECTURE.md#funding-signals-merged-or-separate)
- Should recurring funders be weighted differently than one-off contributors?
- See [Should funding have representation beyond a score weight?](../../ARCHITECTURE.md#should-funding-have-representation-beyond-a-score-weight)
---
## Discussion
Not yet opened.