zlacker

Agree but... these would be hard and expensive to assess objectively, in particular point b.

>>huqeda+(OP)
??? seems straightforward... among other things, require the applicant to do the work / provide evidence...

>>huqeda+(OP)
Some government team could just make a list of allowable projects, updating it every year, and starting for example with all projects with over 100 GitHub stars or some similar metric.

>>london+e1
> all projects with over 100 GitHub stars or some similar metric.

I think it would be difficult to come up with a good metric. For example, it should not be based on some easily faked number governed by a foreign company.

>>london+e1
> all projects with over 100 GitHub stars

Lol, they have been on sale online since forever, because investors apparently can be conned into thinking they have some value.

>>huqeda+(OP)
Does it need to be objective though? I think a vague list of criteria including "The project must benefit a community", or "The project must not be made solely for the benefit of their employer", and have someone review the proposal should be enough.

>>london+e1
GitHub stars would be gamed immediately. You can already buy GitHub stars by the hundreds from spam services.

A better solution would be to require a written proposal which gets reviewed by someone who assesses against some criteria such as project age and other factors. Don’t make it too hard, but make it enough to stop the scheming individuals who think they’re going to start their own GitHub repo, set Claude Code loose in it once a week, and call it civil service.