[Osmf-talk] Treasurer's report for 2017 AGM
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Mon Dec 18 15:17:04 UTC 2017
On Monday 18 December 2017, Gregory wrote:
> For SotM 2017 there were just over 100 candidates, I think it was 109
> after removing duplicates and empty entries.
Thanks for the additional info.
I understand the applications themselves need to stay confidential
because they will often contain private personal information about the
However i think it is important for transparency and accountability to
* Detailed statistics on the demographics of the applicants (where they
come from, where they live, age, gender etc.)
* Transparency on who is involved in the selection process.
> It's really difficult to figure out a firm selection criteria. Last
> week I was looking at how we will make of selection process more
> transparent, you can expect some of this to materialise in about 3
> months around when we announce the call for scholar applications to
> SotM 2018.
IMO this is something that needs to be discussed before the process
Unless you draw a lot you always have some kind of selection criteria.
Documenting what these are to me is essential for any kind of merit
based selection process.
Transparency regarding people involved, selection criteria and
applications received to me are so fundamental that if any of these
cannot be accomplished because it it too difficult or too much work i
think the OSMF should not provide scholarships. The risk of even the
appearance of the possibility of favouritism or catering specific
interest (like those of sponsors) it too high, could place anyone
involved in the whole process in a pretty bad position and could very
badly affect the ability of the OSMF to get funds for something like
this in the future.
In addition to this kind of a priori transparency it might also be worth
considering to have an independent auditing of the selection process by
people who have no stakes in the process to verify - after the
selection has been made - that it has been performed in complience with
the stated criteria.
But to also say something positive: I think the documentation and
reporting on the scholarship visits looks pretty good already
considering it is the first time and there was no routine that could be
More information about the osmf-talk