@ijohn @hernani @tessel This PR would add the CDDEuroCommonsCoalition field to the project schema, such that the field would have to be one of the (currently) 11 defined coalitions. A few questions:

Should it be possible to assign a project to more than one coalition?
Should the field be required? I am hesitant, as per point 3.
I did not simply call the field category because IMHO the Coalitions do not cover all possible categories (e.g. science or open hardware). This causes very forced assignments of projects to categories (e.g. Plaudit). We could call the field category but then extend the possible options which those we consider neglected/overlooked. Alternatively, we could have two fields (e.g. CDDEuroCommonsCoalition and NGICategory), but this creates a massive overhead as now there are two fields to maintain. Do you have any other ideas?

@ijohn @hernani @tessel This PR would add the `CDDEuroCommonsCoalition` field to the project schema, such that the field would have to be one of the (currently) 11 defined coalitions. A few questions: 1. Should it be possible to assign a project to more than one coalition? 1. Should the field be required? I am hesitant, as per point 3. 2. I did not simply call the field `category` because IMHO the Coalitions do not cover all possible categories (e.g. science or open hardware). This causes very forced assignments of projects to categories (e.g. [Plaudit](https://plaudit.pub/)). We could call the field `category` but then extend the possible options which those we consider neglected/overlooked. Alternatively, we could have two fields (e.g. `CDDEuroCommonsCoalition` and `NGICategory`), but this creates a massive overhead as now there are two fields to maintain. Do you have any other ideas?

puer-robustus self-assigned this

2026-07-27 19:12:14 +02:00

puer-robustus requested reviews from tessel, hernani, ijohn, panayotis

2026-07-27 19:12:22 +02:00

ijohn commented

2026-07-31 22:46:38 +02:00

Collaborator

From my point of view this makes sense, I'm fine with most of the changes. Detailed

I don't think that allowing this will prove more valuable when compared to how many issues it can potentially create. I would support having one coalition only
I would not make it mandatory. There are many grants, that end up without the coalition. My reasoning behind this is the complete lack of some "categories" (i.e., hardware)
I'm fine with CDDEuroCommonsCoalition. It's long, but at least it won't get mixed with something different or shadow NGI Categories. At the start I also wanted to only use Coalition, but the full name is fine with me.

From my point of view this makes sense, I'm fine with most of the changes. Detailed 1. I don't think that allowing this will prove more valuable when compared to how many issues it can potentially create. I would support having one coalition only 2. I would not make it mandatory. There are many grants, that end up without the coalition. My reasoning behind this is the complete lack of some "categories" (i.e., hardware) 3. I'm fine with `CDDEuroCommonsCoalition`. It's long, but at least it won't get mixed with something different or shadow NGI Categories. At the start I also wanted to only use `Coalition`, but the full name is fine with me.

👍 1

ijohn approved these changes

2026-08-10 10:11:20 +02:00

puer-robustus force-pushed cdd_coalitions from 637c178a05

ci/woodpecker/pr/woodpecker Pipeline was successful

Details

ci/woodpecker/push/woodpecker Pipeline was successful

Details

ci/woodpecker/pull_request_metadata/woodpecker Pipeline was successful

Details

to ca148d84f5

ci/woodpecker/pr/woodpecker Pipeline was successful