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

Rob Nickerson rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Mon Dec 18 20:36:22 UTC 2017

Hi all,

*Note: Please remember to "assume positive intent" when responding. We at
but mere humans... :-)*

As a general reminder the OSMF working groups are always open to more help.
In regards to the SotM-WG the barrier to entry is very low (email team AT
stateofthemap DOT org) and we will then work with you to see where you
could fit in.

As Mikel pointed out, a few of us have been working on adding more
information to the wiki but this is slow progress as the hours taken to run
SotM alone consume a lot of time - documenting it just adds to the
pressure. Where we have a clear cut (ie. yes/no) policy in place for the
scholarship we have documented it. We also have documented the general aims
of SotM. The selection process Mikel set out highlights many of the factors
that get taken in to consideration after a first pass (scoring, as
described on the wiki). As Christoph has pointed out he missed educational
gain to the scholar. I am pleased to confirm that this is included and many
of the scholars from 2017 have returned home and taken actions directly
based on what they learnt at SotM (the chat group that the scholars set up
is still active today!).

For SotM 2017 there were 8 people involved in the selection process. I have
tried to highlight major affiliations when known. As always we welcome more
people to join this process.

   - Kristin Bott (Kristin had recently undertaken an exercise to review
   travel grant programs across a number of open source geo / open mapping /
   etc conferences)Rob Nickerson (SotM 2017 lead, OSM UK Local Chapter)
   - Mikel Maron (OSMF Board)
   - Kate Chapman (OSMF Board)
   - Ilya Zverev (OSMF Board)
   - Gregory Marler (OSM UK Local Chapter)
   - Dorothea Kazazi (OSMF Assistant, although I believe she did the
   scoring as a volunteer)
   - Benoit Fournier (OSM France Local Chapter)

In my two years doing this I have found that you can have some clear cut
rules, other parts require a lot of debate and discussion amongst the
selection team. If we could write a computer code that does this all for us
then (a) we would have, and (b) it would be open to abuse. Nevertheless we
welcome your thoughts on the process.

@Nicolas & Christoph: What I can do is share the submissions with you from
both 2016 and 2017. You could then work on coming up with a selection
process and provide us feedback. If this is of interest, please drop me a
note so that we can discuss. Some data will likely need redacting (email
addresses) but hopefully we can keep much of the original data. I would
recommend putting aside 8 hours to read all the form responses, plus maybe
the same again to work on a basic selection process.

Best regards,


On 18 December 2017 at 17:11, nicolas chavent <nicolas.chavent at gmail.com>

> Gregory and Mikel, your points are interesting but they are scattered over
> various bits of emails and lack the comprehensive narrative that facilitate
> a solid understanding by OSMF and OSM folks.
> That's where solid reports SoTM and Chairperson are needed. They would
> surely feed and guide constructive email discussions which would eventually
> lead (or minimally contributed) to a better informed membership, as well as
> better ensuring accountability of OSMF resources.
> Hence why, we shall look more seriously at reporting than sharing minutes,
> collection of minutes and broad overview of yearly achievements.
> Best,
> Nicolas
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> > It's really difficult to figure out a firm selection criteria
>> Don't get the impression that there are not selection criteria. Rather it
>> is hard to balance out all the criteria against so many good candidates,
>> and the deliberations are very thorough.
>> Some of the criteria considered are
>> * Geographical representation -> we're mapping the whole world, SotM
>> should have participants from everywhere
>> * Minority groups representation -> bring greater ethnic and gender
>> representation to SotM
>> * Community activity and benefit -> what is the track record of
>> participant in their local community, and how will the community benefit
>> from their attendance
>> * Participation at SotM -> what will there presence bring to SotM in
>> terms of sessions and participation
>> * Financial need -> would not be able to attend without scholarship
>> support
>> -Mikel
>> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 <+1%20415-283-5207> @mikel s:mikelmaron
>> On Monday, December 18, 2017, 10:07:42 AM EST, Gregory <
>> sotm at livingwithdragons.com> wrote:
>> For SotM 2017 there were just over 100 candidates, I think it was 109
>> after removing duplicates and empty entries.
>> This is more a part of SotM-WG than directly by the board/treasurer, it's
>> worth noting that SotM currently tries to be cost-neutral, and to keep
>> ticket prices down.
>> The scholarships are a way of allowing more people to attend. The number
>> is based on the total number of delegates, but also reliant on conference
>> sponsorship and time of volunteers.
>> 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.
>> Our 2018 website is still being built, but the best way to get updates is
>> to sing-up for the e-mail newsletter.
>> There is a form at: https://2017.stateofthemap.org/
>> If I missed any specific questions, or you have other ones regarding SotM
>> then please let me know.
>> Gregory Marler
>> SotM WG (volunteer)
>> On 9 December 2017 at 00:13, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>> On Saturday 09 December 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> > [...] but perhaps you can be a little forgiving from time
>> > to time too!
>> Not that i am really in a position to forgive here but you are aware
>> that to forgive usually requires someone to admit a mistake?
>> If Martijn had opened by apologizing and admitting that you should have
>> published this before the whole election circus started my reaction
>> would have been very different.
>> Let me lead the way by admitting that i should have followed up on the
>> previous hints about this - in particular here:
>> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/ wiki/Board/Minutes/2017-06-20#
>> Closed_portion_of_meeting
>> <http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2017-06-20#Closed_portion_of_meeting>
>> earlier.  I intended to do this but i failed to do so.
>> --
>> Christoph Hormann
>> http://www.imagico.de/
>> ______________________________ _________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap. org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> --
> Nicolas Chavent
> Les Libres Géographes
> Projet OpenStreetMap (OSM)
> Projet Espace OSM Francophone (EOF)
> Projet GeOrchestra
> Mobile (FR): +33 (0)6 52 40 78 20 <+33%206%2052%2040%2078%2020>
> Mobile (Bénin): +22962 55 85 91 <+229%2062%2055%2085%2091>
> Email: nicolas.chavent at gmail.com
> Skype: c_nicolas
> Twitter: nicolas_chavent
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171218/7e60c079/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list