chore: add github sponsors to FUNDING.yml

[davidjgoss]

This PR adds the entry to the org-wide FUNDING.yml which should mean we display a GitHub sponsors button on all repos (see https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/displaying-a-sponsor-button-in-your-repository).

(Note if any repos have their own FUNDING.yml it should be removed so it can inherit this one!)

[mpkorstanje]

Mmh. Not every project is maintained by the core team. I don't think we should imply that people can sponsor those through the open collective or github.

[davidjgoss]

Ah okay - should we remove this file then and only add to specific repos?

[mpkorstanje]

That is something I'm thinking about.

[davidjgoss]

It's a fair point. What I'll do in the meantime then is raise PRs to add this to the common, js, jvm, ruby, rails and go repos as a starter.

[mattwynne]

Mmh. Not every project is maintained by the core team. I don't think we should imply that people can sponsor those through the open collective or github.

Which repos are you thinking of Rien?

[mpkorstanje]

To wit

• https://github.com/cucumber/godog
• https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-jvm-scala
• https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-jvm-groovy
• https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-cpp
• https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-eclipse

[davidjgoss]

We could add a FUNDING.yml to those repos that is just empty with a comment, until/unless we have a maintainer working on them who can be compensated. And then all other repos under cucumber can inherit these settings. Does that sound okay @mpkorstanje?

[mpkorstanje]

That would work. Though if we do this, we should provide sufficient explanation about the how and the why of it all. I'd rather not ruffle any feathers.

[mattwynne]

Perhaps we need to have a conversation about this. I don't see why any of those projects can't also collect sponsorship. Whether we happen to currently have an active maintainer or not is not really the point. We're hosting the project, we can collect money from people who value them and as and when people are available - core team or not - to work on them they can make expenses claims via Open Collective.

Guaranteeing them on tidelift would be a different thing, and I agree we should not do that if we don't have an active maintainer who has made some kind of commitment.

[mpkorstanje]

I don't see why any of those projects can't also collect sponsorship. Whether we happen to currently have an active maintainer or not is not really the point.

I think you misunderstood. These projects are maintained. Just not by us. For various different reasons we decided to put out a call for maintainers - and people volunteered to do so.

Now I'm not against adding sponsor buttons, but we should be mindful of that context. How would you feel if a sponsor button just appeared on a project you've volunteered to maintain? And the money goes to someplace you've never been told about?

And I do think Dave's proposal is fine. But again, it will need to come with some explanation when we do so to avoid any misunderstanding.

But let's discuss the nuances in the call.

[mattwynne]

And the money goes to someplace you've never been told about?

I think this is the problem we need to fix. To me, this is part of the trade-offs of having a project adopted by the Cucumber org. Prospective maintainers should know all about the OC and how to claim from it.

[davidjgoss]

An update on this: on the repos mentioned above by @mpkorstanje the sponsorship setting is now switched off at the repo level, meaning although the funding sources are inherited from the org, they aren't shown to users.

I think we can therefore merge this, and have those conversations with maintainers of the aforementioned repos as we flesh out a more intentional funding strategy post-SmartBear? If no dissent I'll merge soon-ish.