[Osmf-talk] Seeking your input on the Microgrant program
Simon Poole
simon at poole.ch
Wed Oct 10 20:58:51 UTC 2018
Am 10.10.2018 um 20:32 schrieb Martijn van Exel:
> Simon,
>
> In our discussions about this grant program, we didn’t envision this
> to cover large infrastructure projects. Perhaps the document should
> reflect that more clearly?
In my initial response I pointed out that the document doesn't really
define a scope and that's why I suggested that it might be more
productive to clearly separate infrastructure improvements from the
grant programme.
In any case excluding "large" would still include "mid-sized" and
"small". We have stalled projects (for example groups) that would likely
take a couple of man months to production, that is not large, it might
be mid-sized. I wouldn't expect a grant programme (with per project
funds as envisioned) to be a good way of getting such things done.
Think of GSOC sized stuff (which is $6'000 for three months adjusted,
mainly downwards, for purchasing power). We do have a fair bit of
experience with that, in general not what you want to do if you simply
want work done that doesn't look good on a resume and is not in the
programming language / framework / whatever du jour.
>
> I think the scope of such a program is one of the things we seek input
> about. You see that there are a lot of question marks in the
> Eligibility section. What would your answers be?
>
> I am not aware of any previous OSMF run programs that are comparable
> but I am looking forward to your sharing a bit more so we can learn
> from previous iterations and, as you suggest, mistakes made there.
As said "comparable" is difficult because all the relevant bits were
left out of the document, but for example historically the EWG had a
hackday support programme at one time and as far as I know the uptake
was zero or close to.
In the past (again not comparable) we've forced budgeted funds for
certain WGs, actual spend often 0.
While I was on the board I had a couple of discussions with devs that
had project ideas, and suggested if they wanted support they do a short
(aka less than a page) write up of the project detailing what they
wanted to do and what funds they would require. Never received anything.
Simon
>
> Thank you for your feedback!
> Martijn
>
>> On Oct 1, 2018, at 4:16 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
>> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>>
>> I would suggest taking a step back.
>>
>> I'm on the record ( multiple times) of suggesting that the OSMF
>> should take a more active role in improving the infrastructure for
>> OSM contributors. I don't believe that a grant scheme is a good
>> vehicle for that (the work that needs to be done is not particulary
>> glamorous, the grant amounts too small, and the OSMF is/ should be
>> the project driver, just to mention a couple of the reasons).
>>
>> Budgeting £20 '000-50 '000 annually for such work is likely to
>> acheive more. It would require that the OSMF has a way to initiate
>> and run such projects, but that is not more of a challenge than
>> overseeing a half a dozen grants.
>>
>> Now outside of that there might be room for a grant scheme as
>> envisioned, it does need to be more clearly scoped and a mechanism
>> devised that the funds are actually used. The history of such schemes
>> in OSM is rather dismal in the sense that such support has rarely
>> been called upon and as a result they've been disbanded (hack weekend
>> support for example).
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> Am 30. September 2018 11:43:36 MESZ schrieb Heather Leson
>> <heatherleson at gmail.com <mailto:heatherleson at gmail.com>>:
>>
>> Thank you for the comments and questions.
>> Simon, truly, it is time for people to decide more on what they
>> want from the OSMF board. Since I joined, I have been told time
>> and time again that all the major decisions and activities must
>> be driven by the community. We prepared this document to start
>> that conversation. It seems to me that the best way forward is to
>> 'build with'. Since OSMF lacks a "Community Working Group" which
>> would normally shepherd this type of activity in an open
>> organization, we did need to start somewhere. I truly welcome
>> further discussion and movement.
>>
>> For Pete, OSMF has some money donated which we want to give back
>> to the membership. We also are inspired by the ways that this
>> type of activity has helped other open organizations. Your
>> questions are great.
>>
>> The next steps are really about a shared dialogue and way
>> forward. Thus, we decided to start this in the open knowing that
>> it would take time for us to move it together.
>>
>> Thanks again for all the input. Step by step.
>>
>> Heather
>>
>> Heather Leson
>> heatherleson at gmail.com <mailto:heatherleson at gmail.com>
>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
>> Blog: textontechs.com <http://textontechs.com/>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 10:40 AM Pete Masters
>> <pedrito1414 at googlemail.com <mailto:pedrito1414 at googlemail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mikel and all,
>>
>> I'd be interested to know what prompted the OSM microgrants
>> initiative? I don't mean this in a challenging way, but it
>> would be easier to think about if I know what problem the
>> initiative is trying to solve or what barrier it's trying to
>> remove...
>>
>> I run an internal innovation fund [1] within MSF and so have
>> some thoughts on how these things can work. In this case the
>> make up of the committee is pretty important. Because it's an
>> early stage innovation thing, the committee needs to include
>> decision makers (to make sure that, if a project is
>> successful, there is some buy in for resourcing further
>> development or scaling), and subject matter experts (to be
>> able to assess the feasibility, potential impact and ambition
>> of proposals). However, it is also important that in those
>> selection discussions, the 'softer' aims of the fund are not
>> forgotten (democratisation of opportunity, cultural change,
>> etc). I am not suggesting this as a model for OSM microgrants
>> - just making the point that the committee and the selection
>> process need to be designed to meet the objectives of the
>> initiative.
>>
>> In terms of reporting, I agree this should not be laborious.
>>
>> On the admin side, I would suggest a simple template for
>> recording expenses to make sure there is transparency around
>> where the money is spent (this maybe just shared back with
>> the committee).
>>
>> In terms of sharing outcomes, lessons learnt, etc I think it
>> should depend on what the microgrant was for. What we have
>> learnt is that project leads and the wider MSF community
>> benefit more when communication happens throughout the
>> process rather than just at the end (has leveraged increased
>> collaboration, expertise and buy in). This is usually done
>> through blogs [2]. Maybe an OSM diary at the start by each
>> grantee to set the scene?
>>
>> Hope that helps.... Happy to continue the conversation...
>>
>> Pete
>>
>> [1] https://www.msf.org.uk/sapling-nursery-grow-your-ideas
>> [2] http://blogs.msf.org/en/staff/blogs/msf-innovation
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 8:32 AM Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
>> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm very confused by the document.
>>
>> I was expecting to be able to give constructive feedback
>> on at least a semi-complete plan containing a couple of
>> high level goals and a rough delineation of the
>> groups/people/projects that could be potential grant
>> recipients. As is, it essentially boils down to a
>> "somebody should write a Microgrant programme document
>> for us" plea. Your e-mail has more substance that the
>> document, and aiming to let manna rain in a months time
>> is lets say, optimistic, based on the current state of
>> things. You may be able to charter a plane for the
>> throwing out of the window bit by then.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> Am 20.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Mikel Maron:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>>
>>> The OSM Foundation Board has been exploring a new
>>> Microgrant program, and we are seeking your feedback on
>>> the design of this new initiative.
>>>
>>>
>>> The overall objective is to enable individuals and teams
>>> with actionable ideas for moving OpenStreetMap forward,
>>> but need financial support to fully execute those ideas.
>>> Grants could cover events, travel, development,
>>> teaching, outreach, community engagement, documentation,
>>> to give just a few examples. We are looking at programs
>>> like Wikimedia RapidGrants[1] and HOT Microgrants [2] as
>>> a model: a quick, transparent process with low barriers
>>> to entry, open to OSMF members. We are targeting a €50k
>>> total budget for the inaugural round.
>>>
>>>
>>> We have written up some of our thinking at this time on
>>> the OSMF wiki [3]. Some topics that have generated a lot
>>> of thinking and could use more input are:
>>>
>>> *
>>> What is the composition of the selection committee?
>>> What criteria and process should we use to form it?
>>> *
>>> What criteria and process should we use to rate and
>>> select proposals?
>>> *
>>> Is there a role for Local Chapters in the selection
>>> process?
>>> *
>>> What shapes can reporting on microgrants take, that
>>> is not overly laborious but informative for the OSM
>>> Community.
>>>
>>>
>>> Look forward to reading your thoughts and ideas. The
>>> Board will be collecting feedback over the next couple
>>> weeks, and working to finalize guidelines over the next
>>> month. We plan to launch microgrants applications next
>>> month. Applications would be open for 1-2 months (tbd).
>>> Our aim would be to complete selection process and begin
>>> dispersals before the end of 2018.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>>
>>> Mikel and OSMF Board of Directors
>>> 1) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid
>>> 2)
>>> https://www.hotosm.org/projects/microgrants_and_community_development
>>> 3)
>>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Microgrants_Consultation_document
>>>
>>>
>>> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> osmf-talk mailing list
>>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Pete Masters*
>>
>> _ at pedrito1414_ <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>
>>
>> --
>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail
>> gesendet._______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20181010/4b60329d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20181010/4b60329d/attachment.sig>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list