Actually, nevermind. I created my own dashboard to confirm export fields, and it seems its a CSV of _users_, not projects 😞

And so it's not helpful to my research. Apologies, but thanks anyhow @pellaeon!

and perfect, on further investigation, seems I can get what I need from https://grants.g0v.tw/api/v2/projects

@patcon There have been countless (?) attempts to centralize and count g0v projects, including one in 2015 for an art exhibition. Imo it’s always a partial count. 😛

i regret that i have but one 💯 to give

TFD doesn't have a culture of openness, but they seem very receptive to doing things differently. I'm aspiring to be as open as possible, as early as possible 🙂

@patcon Totally missed your reply. 🙌 for being as open as possible as early as possible! → default open + release early & often 💚 I have similar impression wrt TFD, perhaps there could be a dialogue between them, you as researcher and the g0v community at large?

I'm really excited about that prospect! I'm down to conspire if you are, but don't feel obligated :)

@patcon lol let’s talk about this then! Will you be attending the upcoming g0v Summit?

yep, I'm going! My approach, which will mostly be explained in the interview consent form I'm sketching out, will take inspiration from the sort of thinking discussed here: https://github.com/g0vNYC/hub/issues/3

(I tend to refer to this as "humane transparency". It's intended to reflect on full transparency as a "gift" to the commons. These gifts can be seen a virtue to offer in a certain culture (like g0v), but they need not be "all-or-nothing", and they respect the sensibilities of the people from whom the gift is given. People have many reasons not to offer the highest-fidelity transcript into the commons (safety, honesty, personal, etc.), and so a humane and empathic protocol around transparency should take that into consideration imho :slightly_smiling_face:

these considerations come from my experiences working not just in radically transparent open source communities, but also from working with persons who've experienced trauma or abuse, for whom transparency can feel antagonistic to their participation