As a co-maintainer of a number of FOSS projects, I am also concerned by this situation and lack of proper communications about the pending removal of .ORG service, which I discovered now by looking for reason of prolonged CI build lags.
Seeing how several last posts here are from users discussing the possible implications and constraints (e.g. how many credits would be available to FOSS projects, monthly or total or expiring in a year, or if nothing would change) linking to contradictory sources on The Net, I think it would be beneficial for Travis team members to clarify this reliably. For example, projects I am involved in have quite a bit of collaboration but over the past decades AFAIK no (or nearly no) collective money was involved, and no legal body or foundation behind those communities, often with maintainers covering stuff like the occasional DNS registration from their pocket. A monthly $60 would be a noticeable change from yearly $10 or so.
Another sort of question that I think was not raised above, is whether people working on single-person FOSS projects hosted in their own account can have same benefits (whatever those might be) as GitHub organizations dedicated to a project?
Are contributors’ forks of FOSS projects covered, and how - individually (who pays or what quota?) or by upstream allowance (a way to DoS a project if there is a quota)? I saw it in a number of communities that people fork the upstream github project, iterate the source changes in a branch - built time and again in their free Travis CI account - and then propose a PR with tested changes. So as far as the upstream project is concerned, it might have only had one build accounted, while the development could have cost dozens of builds to the developer. Speaking of a DoS concern mentioned above, a malicious actor might as well open PRs and bomb them with build requests…