[Osmf-talk] Treasurer's report for 2017 AGM

[Mikel Maron]

> IMO this is something that needs to be discussed before the process starts.
This is discussed extensively in the selection process, and as I wrote on another email, has defined factors. What Gregory is saying (I think) is that it is always a difficult decision making process.
We all agree that this process should be documented better, and more specifics each year should be produced. You can see a very rough start at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map/Planning#Scholarships
> 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 built on.
Thank you for that. But also, this is not the first time we had a scholar report
http://brainoff.com/weblog/2009/08/17/1469
http://brainoff.com/weblog/2009/08/18/1473
http://brainoff.com/weblog/2010/04/30/1562

I can't find at the moment reports from 2010 and 2011, but we definitely did have them.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

    On Monday, December 18, 2017, 11:27:15 AM EST, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de> wrote:  
 
 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 
applicants.

However i think it is important for transparency and accountability to 
have:

* 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 
starts.

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 
built on.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171218/654da5d3/attachment.html>