Nadia

You're welcome to submit improvements to automate this, but otherwise I find the current system manageable. There are less than 150 projects on here and I haven't gotten many edit...

agreed...think low-hanging fruit on #1 might be to change "self funded" to "somewhat funded" to at least have an option that reflects the reality between "well funded" and "no funding".

Thanks everyone for the great suggestions! @madnificent after thinking about some examples I think @ericholscher's point is probably most important: low (like 1-2) # contributors with a high # dependents...

Side note: I think I prefer the analogy of "keystone species" to "endangered" because endangered can imply that a project is dying/on its way out, which is not the connotation...

@Changaco hmm. that makes it hard to use libraries.io's dependencies metrics as an apples-to-apples comparison of importance then, right?

@tnorthcutt great point! updated. @wesc that's a very interesting metric (commits during working hours), though as you said harder to measure. @shazow I think you're right, it seems like there's...

yeah. this is visible in the JSON under the open-ended questions "needs" and "funding status notes" (think it's tough to standardize "how much", so open-ended lets them structure it as...

I like that idea!

I think adding number of GitHub stars is a great start. I am hesitant about user voting b/c two people can vote for a project for different reasons (one might...

+1 for this, see also #39 where @dferber90 mentioned a similar idea. Where does the money come from? Who are the major donors for something like this, and how much...