Pathways to Enable Open-Source Ecosystems

Basics

• A Grant by the United States of America's National Science Foundation
• "NSF is introducing a new program called “Pathways to Enable Open-Source Ecosystems” (PEOSE). The purpose of the program is to harness the power of open-source development for the creation of new technology solutions to problems of national and societal importance. Many NSF-funded research projects result in publicly accessible, modifiable, and distributable open-sourced software, hardware or data platforms that catalyze further innovation. In some cases, an open-source product is widely adopted and forms the basis for a self-sustaining open-source ecosystem (OSE) comprises a distributed community of developers and a broad base of users across academia, industry and government. The goal of the PEOSE program is to fund new OSE managing organizations, each responsible for the creation and maintenance of infrastructure needed for efficient and secure operation of an OSE based around a specific open-source product or class of products. The early and intentional formation of such managing organizations is expected to ensure more secure open-source products, increased coordination of developer contributions, and a more focused route to impactful technologies."
• Application deadline of May 12, 2022 for Phase I (Scoping Proposals) and October 21, 2022 for Phase II

Open Source Ecology Draft Grant Application

edit

Draft Project Summary

Edit

Draft Project Description

Edit

Key Source Documents

1. Prospective New Awardee Guide
2. Awardee Organization Management Survey
3. Financial Management Systems Questionaire

Phases

Phase I: OSE Scoping Proposals

The objectives of Phase I projects are (1) to enable scoping activities that could result in the preparation of Phase II proposals to grow promising research products that are already available in an open-sourced format into a sustainable and robust OSE that will have broad societal impacts, and (2) to provide training to teams interested in building such an OSE.

Each Phase I proposal should describe the current context and, to the extent known at the time of the Phase I proposal, the long-term vision and impact of the proposed OSE. The proposals should also include specific scoping activities that will lead to a well-developed and sustainable plan for ecosystem discovery, organizational and governance structure, and community building.

Phase I proposals are limited to a total budget of $300,000 with durations of up to one year. The Project Description can be up to 7 pages for Phase I proposals.

Phase II: OSE Developmental Proposals

The objective of Phase II projects is to support the transition of a promising open-source research product into a sustainable and robust OSE. Each Phase II proposal is expected to include a detailed project plan to support the community-driven and collaborative development and deployment of later-stage successful research tools into operational environments. The proposals must include a community outreach plan that (a) outlines activities to engage the intended contributor community that will help to further develop and maintain the technology, and (b) identifies an intended user community or organizations that will serve as early adopters of the technology.

Each Phase II proposal should describe the current context and the long-term vision and impact of the proposed OSE. The proposal should also include a well-developed plan for building an OSE including ecosystem establishment/growth, organizational and governance structure, community building, and sustainability and evaluation plans.

Program Description

The purpose of the PEOSE program is to support a new pathway for translating research results – specifically by supporting managing organizations that facilitate the creation and growth of sustainable, high-impact OSEs around already-developed open-source products, including tools and artifacts. The PEOSE program aims to (1) grow the community of researchers who develop and contribute to OSE efforts, and (2) enable pathways to intentionally transition promising mature open-source research projects into self-sustaining OSEs that could lead to new technology products or services with broad societal impacts.

Importantly, the PEOSE program, unlike other NSF programs like CCRI, CSSI, and Capacity, does not itself support further development of open-source research products or infrastructure. Instead, the PEOSE program provides support for later-stage activities where developing large OSEs would expand the community of users and developers and engender long-term project sustainability. Likewise, the PEOSE program is not intended for open-source development, robustness efforts, or focused communities with limited impact. Instead, PEOSE proposals are expected to have an existing mature and robust open-source product with some active users outside of the participating institutions. For example, open-source software specific to the advanced cyberinfrastructure or a particular scientific community may be better served as submissions to the “Transition to Sustainability” track in CSSI. Finally, PEOSE is also not intended to support the development of products that are intended for profit; such efforts may be better suited for NSF’s SBIR or STTR programs.

The transition from an open-source research project to an OSE requires an organized and intentional approach that depends on many factors. These include (1) the guiding principles and vision of the team founding the organization, (2) the specific open-source product being developed, (3) the market demand for this product within the current technological landscape, (4) the need for adaptability and flexibility in deployment scenarios, (5) a distributed community of contributors who will drive the collaborative development of the technology, and (6) a community of users who will serve as early adopters of the technology. OSEs are generally supported by an international community of users and developers from different entities including academia, non-profit, and industry. PEOSE strongly encourages proposers to consider mechanisms to intentionally involve all these groups, including international collaborators.

This solicitation seeks two types of proposals: first to scope (Phase I), and second to develop (Phase II) a sustainable OSE based on a mature open-source product that shows promise both in the ability to meet an emergent societal or national need and to build a community to help develop it. Importantly, the open-source product should already (i) be publicly accessible preferably via an open-source license (proposers are encouraged to consider licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative) and (ii) have some external third party users and/or content contributors. In this way, the open-source product has already achieved an initial state of “maturity”. Further, in Phase II proposals, the existing open-source products should have basic mechanisms already in place to enable continuous development, integration, and deployment processes towards updating the product to evolve with state-of-the art.

A maximum of three members of each awarded team are expected to attend mandatory OSE training to be held virtually in 2022 and 2023. Training will enable each awarded team to determine whether there is the potential for a relevant and sustainable OSE for their open-source product, learn best-practices for building a secure, private, and sustainable OSE, and identify broad societal impacts for their OSE. The program will include experiential learning activities in ecosystem discovery and workshop sessions focused on community building, governance, and sustainability of OSEs. For planning purposes, NSF anticipates this training will require a time commitment on the order of 8 hours a week for four weeks. NSF will provide further details (e.g., logistics) about this training to all awardees.

Phase II proposals are limited to a total budget of $1,500,000 with durations of up to two years. The Project Description can be up to 15 pages for Phase II proposals.

Minimum Requirements for both Phase I and Phase II

• The last line of the Project Summary section must consist of a prioritized list of 1-5 keywords that best characterize the broad technical area and applications that the OSE will target. The first keyword must denote the directorate [Biological Sciences (specified as “BIO”), Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Education and Human Resources (EHR), Engineering (ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), or Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)] that most closely matches the technical topic advanced in the OSE.
  • The last line of the Project Summary must have a prioritized list of 1-5 keywords that best characterizes the technical area and applications that the OSE is intended to pursue. The first keyword must denote the directorate [Biological Sciences (specified as “BIO”), Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Education and Human Resources (EHR), Engineering (ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), or Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)] that most closely matches the technical topic advanced in the OSE. The list should start with "Keywords:" followed by a list of keywords separated by semi-colons (";").
• The Project Description section must have a separate section titled “Context of OSE” describing the context and vision of the proposed OSE. This required section must include a description of the guiding principles and long-term vision for the proposed OSE, the specific societal or national need(s) that the OSE will address, and the anticipated broader impacts of the OSE (note that, per the PAPPG, the Project Description must also have a separately-titled section on “Broader Impacts”). In addition, the section must have (1) a pointer to the existing publicly-available open-source product that is being transitioned; (2) details on the current status of the research product, development model, methods of dissemination, and user base; and (3) a description of the problem being addressed, and the novelty of the intended product being transitioned, including substantiating evidence of the technology's potential to significantly impact/address the problem.
  • Describe the activities to be undertaken in up to 7 pages for Phase I proposals and up to 15 pages for Phase II proposals. See Section II. Program Description, in this solicitation for guidance.
• A minimum of three and up to five letters of collaboration from third-party users or contributors of the open-source product must be uploaded as Supplementary Documents. These letters of collaboration must be from current users or contributors (who are not directly related to the proposing team) of the open-source product that is the subject of the proposed OSE. Each letter writer should clearly describe how they have contributed and will continue to contribute to the development of an OSE including the technical advancements enabled by these contributions and the value proposition associated with the product.
  • Please note that Research.gov currently can only accept one file for Other Supplementary Documents. If submitting via Research.gov, please combine all documents designated as Other Supplementary Documents into one PDF.
    • A minimum of three and up to five letters of collaboration from third-party users or contributors of the open-source product are required. The letters of collaboration must be from current users or contributors (who are not directly related to the proposing team) of the open-source product that is the subject of the proposed OSE. Each letter writer should clearly describe how they have contributed and will continue to contribute to the development of OSE including the technical advancements enabled by these contributions and the value proposition associated with the product.

In addition to the above information, each letter of collaboration (not to exceed two pages) must contain the name of the letter writer, current affiliations, and relationship to the members of the proposing team.

• • • Provide current, accurate information for all personnel and institutions involved in the project. NSF staff will use this information in the merit review process to manage reviewer selection. The list must include all PIs, co-PIs, Senior Personnel, paid/unpaid consultants or collaborators (including everyone who has provided a letter of collaboration), subawardees, postdocs, and project-level advisory committee members. This list should be numbered and include (in this order) Full name, Organization(s), and Role in the project, with each item separated by a semi-colon. Each person listed should start a new numbered line. For example:

Mary Smith; XYZ University; PI John Jones; University of PQR Non-Profit; Senior Personnel Jane Brown; XYZ University; Letter of Collaboration Bob Adams; ABC Community College; Paid Consultant Susan White; DEF Corporation; Unpaid Collaborator Tim Green; ZZZ University; Subawardee

• • • In accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG, proposals must include a Data Management Plan of no more than two pages (in the Data Management Plan section in Research.gov or as a Supplementary Document in Grants.gov). The Data Management Plan must be substantive and specific to the project and should address all project-relevant aspects of security and data privacy. In addition to addressing how the project will conform to NSF's policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results, the Data Management Plan should address the following topics if they are relevant to the project:

• • • • Security: The project must describe a security plan if the OSE will collaboratively develop and/or release any artifacts, including (without limitation) (a) source code in any form; (b) languages or formats; (c) hardware instruction sets; (d) hardware designs or specifications; (e) scientific methodologies, models, or processes; (f) manufacturing processes or process specifications; (g) material formulations; and/or (h) data. The plan should discuss the access control mechanisms that are planned for both users and content contributors, and the specific mechanisms that will be in place to ensure (i) quality; (ii) secure modification, integration, and release of content (e.g., secure software development methodologies, policies for patching known security vulnerabilities); and (iii) chain of custody.
      • Handling of sensitive data: If the project involves sensitive data, the plan must discuss the method of data collection and identification of harms that could arise from its collection or inadvertent dissemination, techniques that will be used to protect the privacy of individuals and organizations associated with the data, and plans to request IRB and/or IACUC approval for data collection, aggregation, and analysis if applicable. Methods for providing other users with controlled access to datasets and the time period during which data will be available, and policies for authorizing access to the data and techniques (including security protections) that will be used to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of the data should also be discussed.
• All proposals must include a security plan that addresses all project-relevant security aspects, particularly those related to the open-source products, such as data and source code including data privacy and code quality. Proposers are encouraged to consider the Open Source Security Foundation’s best practices. This security plan should be part of the "Data Management Plan" (see Proposal Preparation Instructions for additional details).

Phase I

Phase I awards are not intended to support further development efforts since the research products are expected to be mature and robust tools with active user bases. Rather, Phase I awards will support scoping and planning activities for an eventual OSE that will inform the development of full proposals in Phase II. Phase I proposals are limited to $300,000 in total budget, with durations of up to one year. The Project Description can be up to 7 pages.

Phase I proposals should address the following:

• Ecosystem Discovery: Include a plan for developing a strategy that (1) describes methods to evaluate and justify the need for the innovation within the current technological landscape; (2) explains why an OSE is the right approach to further develop the technology; and (3) outlines methods to identify potential users who will utilize this technology;
• Organization and Governance: Describe a plan for establishing a sustainable organizational structure that includes (1) specific activities and rationale to discover the appropriate organizational, coordination, and governance models including the licensing approach to be employed; (2) continuous development, integration and deployment processes and infrastructure that will enable further open, asynchronous, and distributed development of the open-source product and support sustainability goals for the OSE; (3) methods to sustain the organizational structure at an appropriate level, along with metrics to assess and evaluate success, in the longer term, of the development methodology, processes for ensuring quality control, security and privacy of new content, support for users, and onboarding mechanisms for new contributors; and (4) qualifications of the team to conduct this work; and
• Community Building: Describe the specific activities that will aid in developing a strategy to engage potential content contributors who will help develop and maintain the open-source product, including (1) identification of the specific research and development capabilities required of the potential contributor communities; (2) mechanisms to engage these communities (e.g., workshops, hackathons, competitions, research coordination networks, Ideas Labs); and (3) specific plans for supporting for users and onboarding mechanisms for new contributors.

Phase II

The objective of Phase II awards is to support the development of a sustainable and robust OSE. Phase II proposals are limited to $1,500,000 in total budget, with durations of up to two years. The Project Description can be up to 15 pages.

Phase II proposals should have the following components:

• Ecosystem Establishment/Growth: Include a well-developed ecosystem establishment/growth and ongoing discovery strategy that ensures that the proposed OSE will further develop the open-source product within the current technological landscape, along with specific plans to identify, engage and support potential users and partners who will serve as early adopters for the product; specific plans to engage industrial and international collaborators are encouraged;
• Organization and Governance: Describe a well-developed and sustainable organizational, coordination, and governance model including the licensing approach to be employed, the specific continuous development, integration and deployment processes and infrastructure that will enable the open, asynchronous, and distributed development of the open-source product and support sustainability goals for the OSE, along with metrics to assess and evaluate success, in the longer term, of the development methodology and processes for ensuring quality control, security and privacy of new content;
• Community Building: Describe a long-term strategy for community building to engage, incentivize, and onboard potential content contributors who will help in further developing and maintaining the open-source product; and
• Sustainability: Articulate clear sustainability goals of the OSE, and an actionable evaluation plan, along with metrics to assess and evaluate success, in the longer term, of the development methodology, processes for ensuring quality control, security and privacy of new content, support for users, and onboarding mechanisms for new contributors.

Budget

The budget for either Phase I or Phase II proposals can include support for:

• Salary: Any staff who will assist in the scoping and/or development or governance of the OSE, including the principal investigator (PI) and co-PIs, students, developers, and marketing, administrative, and/or legal professionals;
• Setup costs: Costs incurred for the organizational, coordination, and governance approach, any necessary infrastructure, market analysis, and customer-discovery activities; and
• Mandatory training: The budget may include funds (up to $10,000 per team) to cover the costs of attending the mandatory NSF-provided training to be held virtually in 2022 and 2023.

Submission

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

Merit Review Principles and Criteria

Principles

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.

NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified. Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
2. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
3. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
4. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
5. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
6. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
7. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Phase I proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the following solicitation-specific review criteria:

1. Does the proposal present a convincing case that the OSE will address an issue of significant societal or national importance that is not currently being adequately addressed?
2. Does the proposal clearly describe the long-term vision for the OSE, including potential partnerships and sustainability?
3. Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that a substantial user base exists, or could be built, for the open-source product that will be the subject of the OSE?
4. Does the proposal justify the OSE within the current technological landscape and present a strong case that an OSE is the best approach for generating impact?
5. Does the proposal present clear plans for discovering the ecosystem within which the OSE will be operating?
6. Does the proposal present a credible plan for exploring the establishment of a sustainable organizational structure?
7. Does the proposal present a credible plan to develop a strategy for building a community of contributors?
8. Does the proposing team have the required expertise and experience to undertake the Phase I activities described in the solicitation?
9. Will NSF support serve as a critical catalyst for the establishment of the OSE?
10. Does the proposal include third-party letters of collaboration from current users of the open-source product that is the subject of the OSE?

Phase II proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the following solicitation-specific review criteria:

1. Does the proposal present a convincing case that the OSE will address an issue of significant societal or national importance that is not currently being adequately addressed?
2. Does the proposal clearly describe the long-term vision for the OSE, including potential partnerships and sustainability?
3. Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that a substantial user base exists for the open-source product that will be the subject of the OSE?
4. Does the proposal justify the OSE within the current technological landscape and present a strong case that an OSE is the best approach for generating impact?
5. Does the proposal present a clear and comprehensive description of the ecosystem within which the OSE will be operating along with plans for ongoing ecosystem establishment/growth and discovery?
6. Does the proposal present a specific, actionable plan for establishing a sustainable organizational structure?
7. Does the proposal present a credible strategy and actionable plan for building a community of contributors and retaining contributors?
8. Does the proposal include a clear, detailed licensing approach for the open-source product that is the subject of the OSE?
9. Does the proposal clearly describe a build and test infrastructure, and procedures to address quality control and security of new content?
10. Does the proposal present a clear, actionable evaluation plan to measure the success of the OSE with respect to its sustainability goals?
11. Does the proposing team have the required expertise and experience to undertake the Phase II activities described in the solicitation?
12. Will NSF support serve as a critical catalyst for the establishment and growth of the OSE towards achieving sustainability?
13. Does the proposal include third-party letters of collaboration from current users of the open-source technology that is the subject of the OSE?

External Links

• The Official Program Solicitation