[Osmf-talk] Treasurer's report for 2017 AGM
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Tue Dec 19 00:16:28 UTC 2017
On Monday 18 December 2017, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> 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.
What i am mostly interested at this point would be the statistics on the
applicants. If that information is not yet available in aggregated
form i would be fine with extracting that from the applications and
making it available.
Note documented criteria for a selection process does not mean an
automatism. Assessment of merits and abilities is always a manual
process, you need to look at a person and what they write and make the
assessment. Documented criteria primarily means it should be
auditable. Someone else who has not been part of the selection process
needs to be able to look at the documentation and reconstruct on what
basis candidate A was considered more qualified than candidate B. And
different aspects of qualification should be separated - for example if
the aim is to support female mappers the gender of the candidate should
be a criterion with a certain weight but all other criteria should be
assessed independent of the gender of the candidate.
More information about the osmf-talk