wouldn't it be more sustainable if [LWN.net]

wouldn't it be more sustainable if

Posted Aug 8, 2026 13:23 UTC (Sat) by grmnsftphr (subscriber, #178591)
Parent article: The Software Stewardship Lab launches

the funding would instead directly go to projects? Now it goes to people stating the obvious for large amounts of money but not improving the situation a iota, instead creating even more noise?

to post comments

wouldn't it be more sustainable if

Posted Aug 8, 2026 16:50 UTC (Sat) by ejr (subscriber, #51652) [Link]

To be fair, they list their team on the first page. Many of these orgs have peoples' names only under two or three levels of links. At least you can evaluate that quickly.

And for businesses, it can be better to have a clearinghouse approach in terms of various liabilities. The NSF in the US have (had?) a similar model for industrial collaborations (I/UCRCs), etc. I have my views on them, but so do the businesses.

wouldn't it be more sustainable if

Posted Aug 17, 2026 2:40 UTC (Mon) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

I work at Google, not directly on AI, but... when you are working under multiple layers of middle management, there is an inordinate demand for pieces of paper that say "obvious" things on them (and have at least a veneer of credibility). It turns out that, while many of these things are "obvious" to you and I, they are much less obvious to people who work at a significantly higher layer of abstraction than we do.

I do not have any special insight into what my company plans to do in the future, and I do not want a hypothetical to be misinterpreted as a veiled leak, so I will not be able to be any more specific than that. But I will point out that, in general, middle and upper management are much more likely to act on something if they have seen a (credible) piece of paper explaining it and giving reasons to believe that it is true. This goes for both "obvious" and "non-obvious" things.