I think @ByteHamster was suggesting not to allow for a full year’s subscription, as you pay for subscriptions (and claim back that money) up front and we can’t trust (because life happens sometimes) that a person will stick as ‘active contributor’ for that full year.
I do agree with that, but at the same time: we’re not very likely to pay for many subscriptions (we don’t have many contributors) and if, say, 6 months of subscriptions is ‘lost’ because someone becomes inactive, it’s not a super big deal - as in: we have the funds.
I like this definition but it does exclude non-code contributions. Think of a UX/UI designer which wants to get an LLM subscription to help with interface design in Penpot - they’d not be eligible. I think we could combine your definition with something more generic like ‘consistently active in the project’.
Also discussed in the monthly community call. I like the proposal but it still has the issue described above (contributor drops out, still benefits from paid subscription). Maybe what we can say is “up to the number of months the person has been actively contributing to the project or twelve months (whichever is shorter)”.