NLnet Office Hour: monthly recurring Q&A
The NLnet Office Hour is a recurring monthly event where you can ask questions and we try to answer them.
- Time: Every last Wednesday of the month, 16.00 hour CE(S)T (Amsterdam, Brussels time)
- Place: NLnet Office Hour Matrix Room
- FAQs: Collection of FAQS from previous sessions.
How it works
- Questions are collected on the Etherpad in the Matrix room. [1] (Please make sure you add your question at the bottom of the list so we don't accidentally skip questions.)
- You can already place questions on the pad ahead of the office hour.
- You can check the FAQs from previous sessions below.
- During the Office Hour the questions are pasted into the chat and answered one by one. NLnet people may already be answering the questions in the pad in order to speed things up. But each question will eventually be pasted in the chat and that is also the best place to post follow-up questions.
[1] You can find the Etherpad in the Office Hour Matrix room by following this link or by clicking the Room info 'i' icon > Extensions > Etherpad. Click here for explanatory screenshots of the icon and extensions and one of the 'add extensions' button.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a collection of asked and answered queries of previous sessions. We're grouping them under headers which we are showing here for quick reference.
- Taxes
- European dimension
- Relevant factors for being selected
- Requirements for payments
- Hiring external talent
- How detailed should the application be? And what if we change plans after being selected?
- What should we (not) put in the application?
- Is X in scope?
- What kind of entities can apply
- Questions about the amount to request
- After being rejected
- After being selected
- What fund should I apply to?
- Recommend a repository?
- Response times
- Application form
Taxes
Q: Do I have to pay taxes over the grant money I receive?
A: NLnet can not and will not give any advise about taxes. From the perspective of NLnet we are an ANBI (Public Benefit Organisation) giving a charitable donation. Whether the tax office in your locality accepts that and whether donations are taxed or not depends very much on locality. You can consider to ask a financial/tax adviser. Here is a link to an analysis of the legal environment for philanthropy in Europe, that may be helpful but we take no responsibility for its contents.
Q: Should the budget be excluding VAT? And if so, do I have to find co-funding to pay for the VAT or is it exempt because the funding is a donation?
A: It's charitable donations, there is no VAT, we cannot pay it.
European dimension
Q: Do projects for NGI or NGI Zero funds need to have a European dimension?
A: Yes, it's important that a proposal has a European Dimension, so collaborators or similar. Its European tax money after all.
Q: (follow-up): Does a European Dimension need to be a formal, direct connection to EU/EU horizon party countries, or can it merely be beneficial to the EU? I realise it's a broad question; I am mostly interested whether projects have been funded in the past without having physical presence in the EU, or EU collaborators.
A: Generally formal direct connections to EU/EU horizon party countries. Having someone from the EU on your team would be an obvious way. If that is not the case, you would need to argue what you EU dimension is.
Q: Can applicants who aren't based in Europe but are contributing to a project in Europe apply for an NGI or NGI Zero? Does location matter in such a case?
A: Applicants must always have a European dimension because the funds are funded with European tax money. So make sure to have a European dimension and make that clear in the application. Contributing to a project based in Europe would require the project also participating to the grant in some capacity, e.g. making sure that the contributor out of Europe is part of a EU based team is best.
Q: What does "Applicants must always have a European dimension" mean?
A: Generally European contributors should be involved (prefereably in a majority of the work).
Q: Outside of EU member states, which countries fall squarly within the 'European dimension' requirement?
A: There are countries which have an 'association to Hoizon Europe'. People and organizations of these countries can participate on the same terms as those from EU member states. There is a list of associated countries on the website of the European Commission.
Relevant factors for being selected
Q: When applying for funding to extend an existing piece of FOSS, does the current reach or funding status of the FOSS being extended factor in significantly to the evaluation? Are extensions at a disadvantage relative to net-new projects, for the Open Call or for other calls?
A: Many things have impact. The current reach can have some impact (and the funding status) but also the history of the proposers and previous work done, the specific problems being solved and the amount being asked (and rate etc). So for a new project its useful to point to previous work and collaborations. Its also useful to be in contact with the project itself if you are not the maintainer to figure out upstreamability or similar. A new project with unknown contributors is a gamble, so the technical soundness of the approach should also be visible.
Q: (follow-up): In response to "Its also useful to be in contact with the project itself if you are not the maintainer to figure out upstreamability or similar", is this required if there is already a clearly-defined "plug-in API"?
A: Not necessarily, but it helps us determine if its seen as useful for the project. As this can also affect the rating.
Requirements for payments
Q: If joining as a startup/legal entity what are the papers needed to be presented when reaching milestones to calculate the actual fundings (ofc assumed the grant is already approved).
A: Our request for payment system means you get the donation once you deliver the agreed work for a specific milestone. There's no specific papers as such, we will try to test delivered code for example to check that it performs as expected. We try to agree on clear deliverables for each task and subtask (that the proposer proposes) and then payment is transferred on completion of the deliverable. If you do not manage to complete a task, you dont get to claim for it, but there is no penalty.
Q: (follow-up): Ok so this assumes that we could keep as company capital without "paying" ourselfs officially for the work (simplifying paperwork)
A: Yes you can claim the money as individuals (who are on the memorandum of understanding) or as a company or foundation.
Q (follow-up): I assume for a specific grant the donation will be "singular" or can it be split a part as company for a work (e.g. external people) and other as individual?
A: Yes you can split per milestone/task between people who are on the Memorandum of Understanding. This also can allow adding other collaborators at a later stage of the project via amendments if needed.
Hiring external talent
Q: We wish to apply for funding to hire a software developer and a researcher to extend existing software for an otherwise inaccessible type of machine learning and neuroscience model ("active inference"). We also wish to apply for funding to hire various specialists for short-term projects where they implement a specific functionality they specialise in, or compare the active inference model to a different framework they have expertise in. Would this be within the scope of the call - to hire multiple specialists for short-term projects? (This is for the NGI0 Commons Fund).
A: You are welcome to propose hiring any required specialists, but its recommended to describe the work and assigning budget to that work rather than to hiring. Rates and external participation are also taken into account in evaluations, so should be justified approriately. A proposal that only includes hiring specialists will likely not do as well.
Q: (follow-up): We already have people in mind for the software developer and researcher - is this relevant to include in the application?
A: Its useful to include if you find it relevant. Especially if they are domain experts or directly relevant to the proposal.
How detailed should the application be? And what if we change plans after being selected?
Q: We have a concrete roadmap and timeline for the project, but have been in doubt how much detail is preferred here. We are not against providing more detail (in terms of number of hours, sequence of sub-goals etc), but also worry about becoming overly inflexible by promising a too concrete roadmap. Are there preferences or recommendations here?
A: Its worth providing what information you can. Before a project is selected, we would need a clear breakdown of planned tasks and also an idea of how much money/time is requested for each. It's an indication, not set in stone. It will likely form the basis for your Memorandum of Understanding agreement if selected, but is not fixed.
Q: Me and my team are currently trying to get started on our funded project. But we have a question regarding changing a bit the initial scope of the application. Is this in general possible?
A: Yes, it is possible to change your project plan after you have been selected and your initial plan was approved.
What should we (not) put in the application?
Q: We have been struggling a little to decide on an hourly rate to pay e.g. a software developer. We ended up choosing what we judged to be a standard rate, based on what we could estimate online. Are there any recommendations regarding the rate? We are flexible, so if it is requireed, we can lower the rate; should we state this in the application?
A: I think its worth stating what you can in the application to justify the choices you have made. If you are flexible its worth mentioning
Q: I saw that the short example budget you show in the application form is focused on specific tasts (e.g. X EUR to create functionality Y). I wanted to ask whether you have preferences on how the budget should be structured. I'm also not sure how long each feature I want to implement would take (while experienced in programming, I'm not a professional and so have never had to do this estimation).
A: Estimates are hard - but we need some sort of breakdown of planned work, we cant fund general hours of work. You can mention that you are not good at estimates. Also you could also try provide percentages of effort that go on specific tasks. But in the end , rough estimation is what is expected - not exact to the minute or anything. You will need to make a breakdown either way, but it can become more specific at a later stage. And estimation is always hard (as someone who worked as a developer for many years).
Q: Should the application focus on one or two clear goals (e.g. features)?
A: You can have some 'bits and bobs' items but its usually best to focus on some clear goals and add these as additional items alongside.
Q: Would it be ok to have a number of clear steps of things that we will absolutely implement + some stretch goals in case we're left with extra time?
A: Yes that is fine.
Q: Looking at the ecosystem that subsists from NLNet grants, I see a lot of opportunities to get involved in different projects (from my POV mostly in integrated circuit EDA), but I've heard from at least 2 people that joining their NLNet-funded project takes some administrative coordination (and lead time), as well as specifying relatively narrow tasks and deliverables in advance, in a fast-changing environment with lots of opportunities for out-of-the box synergies. Is it a completely crazy endeavor to try and break out of the box of pre-defined tasks, schedules, and deliverables and focus on what actually needs to get done?
A: The way our grants work does require defining a project plan in advance, but we try to offer flexibility to account for changes and opportunities. We adjust plans as the work goes to take into account unexpected changes or onboard new contributors.
Q: Is it preferable to keep milestones narrowly scoped and incremental (each covering one concrete deliverable), or do reviewers prefer fewer, larger milestones that bundle several deliverables together?
A: We prefer concrete deliverables where what you will build is clear and self-contained.
Q: For governance, is it sufficient in a first grant to outline a lightweight process or do reviewers generally expect external co-maintainers and an active repository already at submission stage?
A: We do look at repo and activity, but we also understand when a project is very young at submission stage.
Q: If the core founders are first-time developers but intend to contract a senior developer (candidates identified but not signed yet), is it sufficient to describethis plan and role, or is it strongly preffered to name a specific individual with CV and availability ?
A: As a general rule, we prefer when the application is spearheaded by the developers who would be doing most of the work themselves, or when said developers are already identified.
Is X in scope?
Q: As part of the development work, we want to develop an introductory tutorial to the type of model that the software implements, since the model is technically and conceptually inaccessible to non-specialists (which is part of the problem we want to address). Is this within the scope of the Common Fund call?
A: Tutorials and documentation can be part of commons fund call proposals, so if this is relevant then can also be a part of the proposal. You can also propose it as an optional item if you are worried it may fall out of scope.
Q: We are curious if you have funded educational programs focused on digital commons before. We noticed a trend of software/hardware development in the grantees. We are preparing an application for a university course and are wondering whether we are in scope? :)
A: Unfortunately, NGI Zero is a research and development programme, which means that creating university courses is very edge of scope. On a case by case basis, open educational resources might be eligible if their development includes significant technical research and development work.
Q: Can documentation (with the goal of making a EU developed FOSS tool more beginner friendly and attract new users and contributors) be a core aspect of the funding request? Or must the main focus be improvement of the software, and documentation is secondary?
A: While documentation is important, and a documentation focus could be acceptable for well-established projects, research and development remain the principal target of our grants. An application that aims to improve beginner friendliness and onboarding by improving documentation and developing new features / improving UX might stand better chance than documentation alone.
Follow-up A: We are very big fans of good documentation!
Q: Similar to the documentation question above: Could working on executable examples (which could be integrated as CI or similar to ensure the remain accurate) be a suitable topic for a grant? The idea would be to provide well-documented examples for people working with a complex existing software (which is widely used but hard to understand).
A: They could be, but generally this is done as part of a project and not as the whole proposal. However this is very specific again, would suggest applying if you think it fits
Q: Does a software used by artists, designers and performers have chances of being funded? I have contributed to this project for 5 years, but have not seeked funding yet considering that is not a core infrastructure tool. At the same time, I see some creative projects listed in your website, so maybe it can work out?
A: It has a chance, specifically in the NGI Zero Commons Fund, which still targets core infrastructure but expands to crucial user facing software. We consider projects based on technical excellence, impact / relevance and value for money. Software that is open-source and serves a broad community of artists, designers and performers might fit, even if not traditionally part of infrastructure ;)
Q: Would a web-based application built on a pre-existing open-source tool be considered as a part of this grant pool?
A: It depends on the relationship of the webapp with the pre-existing tool, its importance for upstream and the potential impact of the project -- as well as the reason to create the webapp.
Follow-up A: its very difficult to evaluate this specifically without more context, so would suggest applying and see.
Q: Is it preferable in a first grant to focus only on lightweight privacy deliverables, or is it acceptable to also include exploratory work on advanced methods as non-core/demo items?
A: Good one! It's acceptable to include more exploratory work, knowing that, should the proposal be selected for the second round, we will ask questions and iron out the project plan with you if needed.
Q: Is it sufficient in a first grant to provide developer-level docs (installation, schema reference), or do reviewers also expect beginner-friendly onboarding material (tutorials, examples) from the start?
A: This entirely depends on the project.
follow-up A: If it is a project targeting developers, then developer docs might suffice; but otherwise we would highly encourage ensuring that end users (or at least the tech-savvy ones, if beginner-friendly is difficult) can at least learn about and get started with the project’s results. Of course it may still make sense for your project to start differently, and feel free to make a case for your strategic approach in the proposal. Overall there seems to be a lot of open source software that is hard for people to get started with, which we would be glad to change.
What kind of entities can apply
Q: Is it possible to apply as a group of individuals (who would each bill their part of the work)?
A: Yes. (In fact we prefer to send donations directly to the people that did the work, instead of proxying it through another person/entity)
Q: Can we apply as an NGO
A: Yes.
Q: Can someone apply with a private business?
A: yes. Everyone and every kind of entity can apply.
Questions about the amount to request
Q: Are there any informal limitations to the amount of funding a solo developer or small entity can request?
A: For a first grant the amount will be 5 000 - 50 000 euro. There is no informal limitations for small entities. It is important to be able to justify the use of the funding through a roadmap that is reasonable for what a solo developer can achieve through a one year grant.
Q: If a proposal asks for more money than the fund is ready to award (to that project), can the funding be adjusted without rejecting the proposal completely? As in, have projects ever been approved, but with less money than they requested? Or are they usually rejected outright in that case?
A: If it is an interesting enough proposal then it is possible. We have had projects approved with less money than originally requested. If the proposal is interesting, but the budget is unconvincing, we explore reduced proposals as an option if it makes sense to do part of the work.
After being rejected
Q: After having submitted and being rejected on specifics, can you get another chance?
A: Yes, you can resubmit; a rejection does not preclude future submissions. But submitting the same proposal is unlikely to yield different outcomes if rejected in the first place.
I have submitted an application which was rejected. I have now significantly improved the plan. In a new application, should I refer to the previous request, or is it useless?
A: If the proposal has significantly progressed, you can try to reapply. If it is similar to a rejected proposal, the result is unlikely to change. You can refer to the previous application if it would help us understand your project better.
After being selected
Q: Given that project selection can take a while (answer above gave 4-6 months), is there a deadline how long after acceptance work would have to start? I understand processing applications takes a while, but that is too long to reject other work in the meantime.
A: Unfortunately we can only fund tasks that are done after the project is officially selected. But if you do part of your proposal before being selected, you could then replace any tasks that you have meanwhile completed.
Follow-up Q: I was more thinking about unrelated work, which may or may not keep me too busy to start immediately after (possible) acceptance.
Folow-up A: You generally can have a year to work on your project. If a year is not enough, this can sometimes be extended in extenuating circumstances. We try to help your project suceed once accepted and try to be as flexible as we can on things.
What fund should I apply to?
Q: What fund should I apply to?
A: Currently, the NGI0 Commons Fund is the broadest fund in scope. If you are really unsure you can submit to the 'Open Call' in the dropdown menu of the Proposal form and mention in the application that you are okay with us allocating your proposal to the most suitable fund.
Recommend a repository?
Q: Can you recommend a repository to store the resulting open source software and documentation to make it available to other users after the end of the project?
A: Repositorywise ideally somewhere with open access to people without a loginwall. Codeberg is used by some grantees.
Response times
Q: how long will it take to get a repsonse after submitting the proposal?
A: We are hoping to get the first round of responses within 10 weeks on the August call, but counting 12 weeks sounds reasonable. We are improving on response times as the amount of proposals increased dramatically this year. Note that weeks start counting after after the closing of the deadline, not when a application was submitted.
Follow-up A: Also, expect the complete selection process from application deadline to official selection to take 4–6 months at the moment. We aim to reduce this as we grow our team and improve our process.
Application form
Q: Regarding the application FORM and character limitations, does it count characters with spaces or without? thank you!
A: Hmm, good question, we actually don't know. But a tip from someone else is to just count the spaces to be on the safe side.
Q: A small question about the online form: 'Can you explain the whole project and its expected outcome' -> does project here mean the existing project or the specific work to be undertaken with the funding?
A: The specific work undertaken with funding, as it relates to your global goal and roadmap.
