Sustainability | 2i2c

BIDS joins as 2i2c's first premier member organization

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000

We’re thrilled to announce that the Berkeley Institute for Data Science (BIDS) has joined as 2i2c’s first premier member organization! This partnership marks a significant milestone in our sustainability strategy and recognizes a relationship that’s been central to 2i2c’s story from the very beginning.

BIDS Executive Director Kirstie Whitaker and 2i2c Executive Director Chris Holdgraf discuss the partnership at the membership launch event.

What this partnership means #

As our founding premier member, BIDS is financially supporting 2i2c while helping us design our member network services and relationships. Together, we’ll work on:

Co-designing member services - BIDS will provide feedback and guidance as we develop how our member network operates
Technical collaboration - Partnering on JupyterHub development, cloud infrastructure improvements, and other open source projects
Strategic input - Advising on 2i2c’s direction and approach to strengthening open source communities

This gives us a foundation for both technical and social collaboration, and we hope it opens doors to deeper partnerships across the Berkeley community.

Berkeley has long been a leader in open source software development. This partnership lets us share our knowledge and support community development of open source infrastructure across institutions.

Kirstie Whitaker, BIDS Executive Director

Why we’re excited about this #

For open source: BIDS has been a leader in supporting open source and cross-disciplinary open science for many years - helping to shape projects like NumPy, scikit-image, NetworkX, and JupyterHub. Their feedback and partnership will help us improve our impact across the entire ecosystem.

For sustainability: This is the first paying member of our new membership model, which is a key part of our long-term sustainability strategy. It demonstrates that organizations value what we’re building and want to invest in shared open source infrastructure.

For 2i2c: BIDS has been part of our story from the beginning, and this partnership recognizes the continuing influence and support we’ve received from the organization.

Learn more #

Read the full announcements from our partners:

Acknowledgements #

The Berkeley Institute for Data Science and the entire BIDS team
UC Berkeley’s College of Computing, Data Science, and Society

Celebrating BIDS as 2i2c's first premier member at UC Berkeley

Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000

We’re celebrating BIDS (the Berkeley Institute for Data Science) as 2i2c’s first premier member at an event at UC Berkeley on Thursday, October 15th. If you’re in the Berkeley area, we’d love for you to join us! Event page here.

This is a milestone for 2i2c and demonstrates BIDS’s commitment to open infrastructure and partnership. As our first premier member under our new membership model, BIDS is helping us build a more sustainable path forward while strengthening our collaboration for shared impact in open science.

Learn more #

Acknowledgements #

Thanks to The Navigation Fund for funding the strategic roles that have led to this new membership model.

Financial support from The Navigation Fund for identifying and building a scalable sustainability model

Sun, 08 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0000

We are proud to announce that 2i2c has received financial support from The Navigation Fund to assist us in our mission to design and build a sustainable and scalable model for helping communities create and share knowledge with open infrastructure.

The award totals ~$1.5M over 2 years. It provides support for several key strategic roles that are traditionally difficult to fund in a young organization: product management, delivery management, and business development. Here are the key goals this funding works toward:

Goal #1: Delivery. Develop the operating structure and team skills to efficiently scale our product and service delivery.
Goal #2: Product. Develop a product system that continuously improves and delivers value and impact at scale.
Goal #3: Sustainability. Build a business model that is competitive and gives us resources to sustain and scale our service.

We believe this is a critical step in helping our organization define and build a pathway to sustainability so that our service remains accessible, scalable, and resilient for years to come.

We’re incredibly honored to be supported by the Navigation Fund, and excited to continue our work helping communities create and share knowledge with open infrastructure.

Support from CZI to sustain 2i2c's mission to help communities create and share knowledge with open infrastructure

Sun, 13 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0000

We are proud to announce that 2i2c has received financial support from The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to sustain our efforts at helping open science communities create and share knowledge with open infrastructure.

Funding comes from the Open Science Program at CZI, which aims to ‘…support a diverse scientific community working in the open to accelerate our understanding of human health and disease. We invest in tools, platforms, and organizations that help expand participation and access to the scientific process by making it open and reproducible, and helping scientists build on each others’ work.’

This builds upon previous core support provided by CZI, and provides an additional ~$700K over 1 year to help 2i2c sustain its mission. We are deeply grateful to CZI for their support, and this funding provides key runway for 2i2c to serve its community network and explore a sustainable and scalable model for impact.

Towards scalable and sustainable networks of community hubs

Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Over the past several years, 2i2c has built a platform for serving community-centric hubs that provide a digital home for workflows in creating and sharing knowledge. See our three-year retrospective for a report about the growth and impact this service has had.

During that time, we’ve experimented with several models for funding and sustaining this infrastructure. We’ve tried everything from direct cost-recovery from individual communities, to institutional contracts that cover several hubs, to grant-based models that fund many communities at the same time.

There are pros and cons associated with each, and we believe that a combination of all of them is important for a long-term service sustainability model for 2i2c. However, with this post we’d like to share the community funding model that strikes the right balance between short-term sustainability and scalability.

In short: 2i2c aims to serve networks of communities that are joined by a domain or workflow, and fund the network at once rather than through one-on-one contracts.

A model of the funding and service relationships we aim to build.

We believe that this model strikes a balance between “scalable and very simple hubs” (which require a lot of administrative toil) and “fully bespoke hubs” (which are expensive and unscalable). By using a single funding contract to serve many communities, we can reduce the amount of sales and contracting toil for each community. This will let us raise funds more quickly, and focus more of our time on delivering service.

We are seeking community leaders to collaborate #

If you’re part of one or more communities that would benefit from cloud infrastructure for creating and sharing knowledge, and believe a network like this would benefit you, please reach out! We are seeking leaders collaborate in designing service for networks like the ones described above, and identifying potential funding sources for it.

If you’re interested in collaborating on this, send an e-mail to partnerships@2i2c.org.

Learn more #

You can find more information about this fundraising and service strategy in our Team Compass documentation.

Acknowledgments #

Support for organizational and strategic work like this is provided by a grant from CZI.

A three year retrospective report of 2i2c's impact

Fri, 01 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0000

We’re pleased to share a three-year retrospective report that was created to close-out 2i2c’s original seed funding grant provided by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

See the Zenodo entry here:
See the MyST website for the report at 2i2c.org/report-czi-2021.
Download a PDF version generated by MyST here.

This report was written with the new MyST Markdown document engine and shows off some of the functionality that we’ve been working on in collaboration with the MyST team.

We’re incredibly grateful for the seed funding that CZI provided to kickstart 2i2c’s mission and operations, and excited about more impact to come!

Principles and considerations for ethically accepting funding for open source

Sun, 08 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0000

This is a brainstorm to consider the principles and guidelines that 2i2c should follow in defining its strategy towards open source communities. See our open source policy documentation for the product of this brainstorm.

Over the past year the 2i2c team has focused its efforts on deploying, configuring, running, and managing cloud infrastructure that supports open source workflows in research and education. We’ve also done a lot of upstream contribution as a part of our work.

However, we have shied away from taking direct funding for direct development work in open source projects. This is for two primary reasons:

Our focus has been on managing cloud infrastructure, not developing it. We want to facilitate access to open workflows in interactive computing, which is a different skillset and kind of work than creating those tools.
While 2i2c is aligned with the interests of open communities, we are still a distinct organization with our own mission and strategy. We want to be conscious that 2i2c team members have more than one hat, and that their 2i2c hat is necessarily not the same thing as their open source hat. As such, we don’t want to leverage our “other hats” to drive resources to 2i2c without being thoughtful about it.

In the last year we’ve found that running infrastructure for research and education gives us great visibility into the kinds of things that these communities want to do, and ways to improve the infrastructure. It also means we can potentially be a conduit of resources from those communities into open source development workflows. For example, we recently partnered with GESIS to make improvements in Binder and JupyterHub.

So, this post is a brainstorm to identify some of the major considerations that we should take before agreeing to this kind of work. Its goals is to drive policy that streamlines our ability to seek and accept funding for open source work. It tries to answer this question:

How can a stakeholder accept funding on behalf of an open source community in a way that is inclusive, equitable, and effective.

Some assumptions #

First off I want to note that this only applies to open source projects that I’d call “Open communities”. For example, those that follow the principles of open scholarly infrastructure. The ideas here don’t apply to open source projects that are run by single organizations or people. You can assume I’m talking about projects that:

Have inclusive multi-stakeholder governance and operations.
Care about having a broad contributor and leadership base, and want to follow best-practices in inclusive and equitable operations.
Need funding to drive major new efforts, or to sustain pre-existing maintenance and community management work.

Why is this important? In short, because open projects should care about good governance, and about building sustainable and diverse multi-stakeholder communities around their operations and strategy. While it’s easy to ignore these considerations and just bring in money however you can (open source is perpetually under-funded, after all), it’s crucial that we think about how to do so in a way that aligns with the values of open communities, and that doesn’t simply propagate a “rich get richer” dynamic. Ultimately, the unique value of open communities is not in the technology they create, but in the way that they create it.

`tl;dr`: An overview of major considerations #

After working with several open source projects over the years, there are a few issues that I’ve seen come up again and again. Here’s a quick summary and I’ll note each in more detail below.

Governance: funding should follow major decisions, not make them. It should represent the interests of the project rather than those of a single stakeholder or payer.
Transparency: stakeholders that accept funding should be transparent in their accounting (the sources of funding, deliverables attached with it, and operational costs), their plans (the work they plan to do and how they want to do it) and in their strategy (the reason they’re applying for funding in the first place, and how the work fits in with their other operations).
Accountability: stakeholders that accept funding should be accountable to the open communities that they are supporting. There should be mechanisms for open communities to provide feedback about and influence their operations, ideally in a powerful position like a board seat.
Equity: funding should be shared with others in the project, particularly those that need it or that couldn’t get funding on their own. Moreover, people should be paid for their time - if funding requires work from others, they should be compensated somehow.
Inclusion: funding opportunities should be shared with others in a project, particularly those from historically disadvantaged communities. Stakeholders with funding “connections” should use them to boost others in the community as partners, not just as contractors

Here is a more in-depth discussion of each below.

Governance: funding should follow decisions #

As a general rule, funding should not be a decision, it should only be fuel that helps execute a decision that has already been made by the community. Moreover, responsibilities attached to funding should only be given to people with the power to actually carry them out.

The most common mistake that I’ve seen in open communities is when funding creates an unintended decision on behalf of many others.

For example, a new funder shows up with an agenda and offers it to a subset of maintainers. Those maintainers accept, implicitly making a decision to do the bidding of the funder (this could be a grant, a contract, etc). They begin doing the work, and run into resistance from other maintainers who weren’t on-board with these changes in the first place. This creates a stressful situation where one party has legally committed to doing some work, but they may not have the buy-in from others in the community to let it happen. This is particularly problematic when the funding commitment was not advertised publicly to others in the project early on.

Here are a few tips to ensure that funding is aligned with good governance principles:

Make it clear who is allowed to accept money for a project. First and foremost, projects should be explicit about who is allowed to accept money that involves doing open source work for them (e.g., only steering council members can approve new funding). Moreover, they should define basic policies about how that money can be used (e.g. does the project have a cap on the amount that can be paid to individuals).
Tell others about your funding opportunity and get buy-in. If a stakeholder wants to take advantage of a funding opportunity, they should first tell others on the team about the opportunity and what they hope to do. This is the bare minimum - give others an opportunity to object to your plan and/or ask for clarifications or modifications.
Make decisions before funding opportunities arise. If the community has already agreed that something is a good idea, then it is much simpler if funding simply helps implement something rather than propose something new.

Transparency: make it easy for others to see your interests and operations #

Most open projects are community-led, while funding tends to be awarded to one or more stakeholders within that community. At a minimum, communities should ask stakeholders to provide transparency about why they’re looking for funding, what they’re agreeing to do, and how they spend the money.

Transparency is a way of building trust with other stakeholders by being clear about what you’re up to. It makes it easier for others to hold you accountable, and makes it easier for others to understand whether your actions are in line with the goals and values of the community.

Here are a few tips to follow:

Share your budget with the community. Money is always a sensitive subject, but communities have a right to know if funding is being spent towards roles and operations that align with their interests. Some communities may also have policies about how much funding can be awarded to an individual person, and making this clear (even if it is in aggregate) helps others understand what you’re doing with funds.
Declare conflicts of interest. We all have multiple hats when working with an open source project (unless we’re paid full-time by the project itself). Any participating organization has their own mission, strategy, and interests. Some of these may be aligned with a community, and some may be aligned with a funding opportunity. It’s important to declare how these interests align and where they differ, especially as it pertains to power dynamics and how funding is used.
Carry out project planning and execution in public. Dedicated staff have more time than normal to decide and act quickly. If they don’t leave a paper trail for their work, it becomes difficult for those with less time to remain engaged and follow along. Make sure that you make your intentions, and the results of your actions, easily discoverable by those who do not have the same amount of time as you do to engage.

Accountability: allow others to decide if you’ve done a good job #

Accountability is a complement to transparency - you need to show others what you’re up to, and let them tell you if you’re doing a good job. At a minimum this should happen at the level of the specific funding opportunity, but ideally you should give key community members visibility and agency into your organization’s broader strategy.

Ask for feedback about your strategic plan and how this funding fits into it. Tell a community about what you’re up to, and why you think this funding is in both of your interests to receive. Let them know how it fits in with the big picture.
Give strategic oversight to community members that work for a different stakeholder. Give special attention to at least one community member that does not work for the same organization (for example, by creating an advisory board and briefing them on your progress and planning). This will help a more neutral perspective represent the interests of the community and avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Perform an audit of your work and share it with others. Do your best to objectively assess your own progress towards your goals, and whether you believe you’ve represented the community’s interests in working towards them. Other community members may not have the resources to do this on their own, and you should use your dedicated funding to perform this yourself (while understandably declaring a conflict of interest in assessing your own work).

Open communities are a vehicle for building collaborations that span countries, economic situations, and use-cases. They are powerful because of their diverse and multi-stakeholder nature. However, they also exist in a society that is deeply inequitable and that perpetuates centers of wealth and power. This means that most open communities will have a subset of stakeholders with connections and resources that are unavailable to others. To ensure that we follow the principles of open culture, it is crucial that we find ways to push against this inequitable system by sharing resources with one another wherever possible.

Moreover, getting funding often means centralizing the ability to act in a small subset of people. This runs the risk that decision-making (see above) and organizational knowledge become centralized with those individuals. If you’re paid full-time to work on an open source project, there’s a good chance you will personally come to understand the codebase better than anybody else just because you have the time to learn it. This can turn into an anti-pattern where those with access to resources have an unfair power advantage in their perspective over the project.

Finally, running open source projects requires work on both the creating and the receiving end. You can pay somebody to write a bunch of code, but somebody else still has to review it, lead discussions, and ultimately decide to merge.

Here are a few tips to follow:

Share funding with others. If your work is going to require reviews and input from others, find a way to compensate them for their time (if they wish). Prioritize sharing resources with orgs from historically marginalized or disadvantaged communities. When dedicated resources are available, use them for these kinds of groups.
Prioritize documentation and knowledge sharing. It can be attractive to work on shiny new things, but it is crucial that you put in the work to share knowledge with others in a community so that your funding doesn’t become a source of knowledge and power centralization. Document your planning and work, and use that funding to make extra efforts to share your experience with others.
Define practices for making changes that require at least two stakeholders. This helps ensure that those funded to work on open source cannot overpower others in the community just because of their dedicated time. It also encourages healthier collaboration and communication between stakeholders.

Inclusion: bring others along with you #

A differentiating aspect of open communities is the way in which they share power among stakeholders. Funding is inherently tied to power, as it gives you the ability to pay people to do things. Moreover, a stakeholder that controls funding also controls what it is used for. As a result, it’s not enough to simply share funding with others in a project, if that funding comes with strings attached. It is also important to share opportunities for funding with others, and to build coalitions of equals when pursuing new funding.

Collaborators should be given agency over what they want to do with funding. They should be part of grant planning, project planning, etc. They should be seen as co-leads in discussion and announcements. Obviously any funding opportunity will come with obligations, but the important thing is who gets to decide what the team commits to in the first place, and how they plan to accomplish their goals.

Here are a few tips to follow:

Invite others to participate in funding opportunities, especially if they need it. If you identify a funding opportunity, tell others about it. Invite them to collaborate with you on a proposal, or encourage them to write their own proposal.
Treat other stakeholders as partners, not contractors. Treat collaborators as co-equals that have a say in leadership, strategy, and planning. Funding shouldn’t solely come in the form of “strings attached” and contract work. It should center others as collaborators and leads that bring their own ideas to the table.
Find ways to give power to those who historically do not have it. Consider the power dynamics of who applies for funding and actively invite participation from those that need it or that wouldn’t have access to these resources on their own. If you have a personal connection, use it to bring others to the table. If you’re at a well-known organization, use it to boost the profile of others.

How do I actually implement any of this? #

The ideas in this post are principles and goals to strive for. They also touch on very complex subjects, and following them all perfectly is unrealistic given the state of most organizations. The point is not to define a specific roadmap of actions that must be followed, but to note a few major anti-patterns and ways to avoid them. Fundamentally, your goal should be to build trust with a community and to live up to the community’s mission and values. Do what you can, and be honest and open with others in your efforts. A little bit of transparency and effort goes a long way.

As for 2i2c, we hope to use the ideas in this post to define a strategy and set of policies for how to engage with directed funding for open source. We’ll share new ideas in the coming weeks.

Acknowledgements #

This post draws on our practical experience in collaborative funding arrangements, including our partnership with GESIS to make improvements in Binder and JupyterHub infrastructure.

References and more reading #

There are many resources that discuss how to equitably and inclusively seek funding as part of collaborations¹. Here are a few that I found useful in writing this blog post:

And many thanks to several people in the Invest in Open Infrastructure, The Turing Way, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and Code for Science and Society Slacks that helped me brainstorm these ideas. ↩︎

2i2c launches next phase in partnership with CS&S

Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0000

This post was originally written for the CS&S blog.

Code for Science & Society is thrilled to welcome the International Interactive Computing Collaboration (2i2c, for short) as a fiscally sponsored project! After spending a year incubating in the International Computer Science Institute, where 2i2c received critical startup support, 2i2c now joins our fiscally sponsored project program to launch their next phase. 2i2c develops and operates cloud infrastructure for interactive computing, with a focus on the Jupyter ecosystem and cloud-native workflows in research and education. They will build a cloud services model that respects a community’s Right to Replicate their infrastructure by providing transparent and customizable JupyterHub deployments on cloud infrastructure that utilize community-driven open source tools. They aim to use the resources generated from this service in order to support the communities that underlie this infrastructure. Read on for more about 2i2c’s mission and how CS&S will support their team and vision.

2i2c’s organizational mission is to develop and operate sustainable cloud services that provide interactive computing infrastructure with JupyterHub and an ecosystem of tools that support research and education. This model has been pioneered in the organizations that 2i2c’s co-founders have co-led for many years, including the Pangeo Project, the Syzygy Project, the Binder Project, and the UC Berkeley DataHub. These projects follow an “integrate, customize, and upstream” model. They integrate pre-existing open source tools, make necessary customizations to support their specific use-case, and make upstream contributions to extend the infrastructure beyond its current capabilities. This creates a virtuous cycle where tangible needs are met in research and education, while improvements are made to open source projects that benefit the broader community. 2i2c hopes to scale this model, and provide these JupyterHub-based cloud services available to the broader research and education community.

CS&S is particularly interested in pursuing the opportunity to work closely with 2i2c as their team explores how to build sustainable, ethical services that support open scholarship as well as open source communities. The model that 2i2c will develop is different in many ways from traditional grant-based development, or service-based business, because it depends on running community-led infrastructure that 2i2c contributes to, but does not control or own. Both CS&S and 2i2c believe that this model is an opportunity to build more distributed, community-led infrastructure and services, as well aligning a sustainability model with both open source communities and the scholarly community. We hope that this work will also provide experience that helps improve CS&S’s other initiatives in this space, including CS&S’s other fiscally sponsored projects and participants in the Digital Infrastructure Incubator program.

Achieving this mission will involve innovation at an infrastructure level, a business model level, and an open source community strategy level, and will be carried out over the coming years. 2i2c’s next steps are to run pilot JupyterHub infrastructure for select communities of practice in research and education, in order to better understand their needs and how these needs fit in with 2i2c’s developing sustainability model. They will also build infrastructure to deploy and customize a federation of JupyterHubs that are community-specific, and that run entirely on open source infrastructure.

If you believe that your community would benefit from a hub like this, please reach out to the 2i2c team, or join their mailing list. Stay tuned as 2i2c builds its sustainable, scalable, and community-driven platform for interactive computing in the cloud.

2i2c receives core support from CZI

Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000

Last week we announced the creation of 2i2c, a non-profit initiative dedicated to improving and facilitating access to infrastructure for interactive computing workflows in research and education. Today we are thrilled to announce that 2i2c has received core support from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. You can find CZI’s announcement here.

This funding totals around $1.4m over three years. It provides crucial core support for 2i2c as it bootstraps itself into existence. We are so thankful to CZI for this support. 🎉🙏✨

The rest of this post is a short run-down of what we’ll use this funding for, and what we hope to accomplish.

The big picture #

In recent years, several projects including Binder, Pangeo, Syzygy, and the Berkeley DataHubs have built atop the Jupyter architecture to support cloud-based infrastructure for reproducible research, large-scale scientific data analysis, national-scale infrastructure for researchers, and broad-impact educational programs based on freely available computational materials. These projects illustrate the transformative potential of the open Jupyter architecture, but they have also shown that unlocking this potential in service of scientists and educators requires continued development and resources beyond those of open source volunteers.

In order to deploy these resources at scale, manage and maintain them for large communities, and to continue developing the underlying technologies for scientific use cases, we need models to sustainably deploy and improve Jupyter technology. We also need capacity for thinking strategically and forging new partnerships to accomplish this goal. This funding will support 2i2c’s early strategic planning and partnership efforts, as well as technical development and operation of Jupyter infrastructure for research and education.

Below are two keys goals for this grant:

Goal 1: Build capacity for Jupyter in research and education #

The primary goal of this funding is to build more capacity for Jupyter’s engagement in research and education. This funding will primarily support Chris Holdgraf to build strategic partnerships and collaborations, find opportunities for Jupyter infrastructure to benefit research and education, coordinate activity in the Jupyter project that benefits these communities, and secure more funding for development, maintenance, and support for Jupyter technology.

We are grateful to CZI for this funding because strategy, leadership, and community support are often difficult to fund from grants that are focused on technical deliverables. By funding strategic growth and capacity building, CZI is helping 2i2c lay a strong foundation from which it can have a greater impact.

Goal 2: Support hosted Jupyter infrastructure for research and education #

2i2c will offer hosted interactive computing infrastructure utilizing the Jupyter ecosystem. It will both deploy and operate this infrastructure for researchers and educators, as well as perform core development to ensure that it serves these communities well. Funding from this grant will support 2i2c’s first hire - Georgiana Dolocan as an Open Source Infrastructure Engineer. Georgiana has been the JupyterHub Contributor in Residence for the past year, and we are so excited for her to join 2i2c!

Georgiana will begin by supporting several pilot hubs that are run by 2i2c for community colleges, universities, and research institutions. She will help these organizations accomplish their mission through 2i2c infrastructure, and will develop these technologies so they are stable, scalable, and serve a diverse set of needs in research and education. This will hopefully set the foundation for 2i2c to sustainably offer this hub infrastructure to a wider audience in the future.

This is the next step in Georgiana’s journey through the Jupyter ecosystem that began with an outreachy internship followed by a term as Contributor in Residence. Both of these steps were made possible thanks to Jupyter stakeholders who invest their resources, time, and mentorship to grow Jupyter’s community beyond the people that have traditionally been involved in the project. It’s also possible because of funders committing resources to broaden participation and inclusion - in particular, the Berkeley Institute for Data Science and NumFOCUS for their original support of our Outreachy interns and the CZI EOSS grant series for funding the original Contributor in Residence.

What’s next #

With this core support, 2i2c turns towards its JupyterHub pilot deployments to build early prototypes that serve research and education, and to build organizational models that sustain these hubs and their development. If you or your organization think you’d be a good fit for these pilots, please reach out to 2i2c and let us know!

Many thanks again to CZI for this support - we believe that it is an excellent investment in the Jupyter community and in open source communities more generally. We also believe it will lead to major advancements in supporting interactive computing workflows for research and education. We look forward to what the next three years will bring!

Sustainability | 2i2c

BIDS joins as 2i2c's first premier member organization

What this partnership means #

Why we’re excited about this #

Learn more #

Acknowledgements #

Celebrating BIDS as 2i2c's first premier member at UC Berkeley

Learn more #

Acknowledgements #

Financial support from The Navigation Fund for identifying and building a scalable sustainability model

Support from CZI to sustain 2i2c's mission to help communities create and share knowledge with open infrastructure

Towards scalable and sustainable networks of community hubs

We are seeking community leaders to collaborate #

Learn more #

Acknowledgments #

A three year retrospective report of 2i2c's impact

Principles and considerations for ethically accepting funding for open source

Some assumptions #

tl;dr: An overview of major considerations #

Governance: funding should follow decisions #

Transparency: make it easy for others to see your interests and operations #

Accountability: allow others to decide if you’ve done a good job #

Equity: share resources and knowledge with others #

Inclusion: bring others along with you #

How do I actually implement any of this? #

Acknowledgements #

References and more reading #

2i2c launches next phase in partnership with CS&S

2i2c receives core support from CZI

The big picture #

Goal 1: Build capacity for Jupyter in research and education #

Goal 2: Support hosted Jupyter infrastructure for research and education #

What’s next #

`tl;dr`: An overview of major considerations #