[Osmf-talk] microgrants feedback

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 29 October 2019, Joost Schouppe wrote:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:Microgrants_working_document
>_snapshot_2019-10-29.odt
>
> You can discuss the document here on osmf-talk, but you can also send
> feedback straight to board at osmfoundation.org. Feel free to share
> this message with people who are not on this list.

First of all the overall concept of this draft looks quite positive to
me. In particular the elements about transparency in the selection
process in my eyes contrast positively with past practice within the
OSMF in some fields.

A general comment regarding procedure of policy making within the OSMF -
i already kind of mentioned this in context of the attribution
guideline:  It is IMO of fundamental importance that what goes into the
design of OSMF policy is publicly documented in both what it entails
and who provided it.  This is in particular significant when economic
interest might be involved.  If for example someone provides a
suggestion for the microgrants policy based on an idea for applying
with a certain project later to ensure it would qualify this should IMO
not be allowed to hide under an umbrella of confidentiality.

Long story short - input on policy should IMO be public by default and
if input is received privately this should be disclosed in a form that
allows the members to identify possible undue influences.

Regarding the policy draft itself:

* i would suggest to work through the document and remove some of the
vagueness in formulations.  This does not only apply to the criteria
but also for example to the framework for the committee.  Formulations
like "The Board expects the Committee to be open by default" simply
leave too much room for interpretation which are likely to cause
friction later on.

* In my eyes the rule on disclosing "personal benefits" as it is is
insufficient to deal with conflicts of interest.  Conflicts of interest
are by definition any secondary interests being involved - which do not
have to be personal benefits of the person applying.  Those can also be
interests of third parties for example.  Changing this rule to require
extensive disclosure of all motivations of the applicant for applying
would be a good idea i think.

* The biggest gap in the whole document so far quite clearly is the lack
of any framework for handling the grants after the selection has been
made.  This is a big issue IMO.  Recruiting volunteers to accompany the
grants while the projects are in progress is IMO at least as important
and as difficult as recruiting applicants.  Just shelling out money
without a clear plan on how to follow up on this does not seem a good
idea to me.  And i here also see kind of a goal conflict.  If the goal
is to attract a diverse selection of applications from different
cultures and from people speaking different languages this will
generally mean additional work in guidance and mentoring.  If on the
other hand you want to minimize work for the OSMF this would
automatically mean a strong preference for a very narrow subset of
potential applicants.

* Regarding the question if microgrants can pay people for work - this
is clearly a core question and really a hard problem.  If i'd think of
possible projects i could consider applying for a microgrant with i
would probably say that for any such idea at least 80-90 percent of the
total project costs would probably be work costs.  And i'd guess for
many here the situation would be quite similar.  The decision to make
in such a case is to either boldly apply with the request to have my
work paid or to essentially apply for a 10-20 percent grant for the
project and be willing to finance the rest myself.  I have no real
solution for this problem but wanted to mention how this is likely seen
by probably quite a lot of potential applicants from a practical
perspective.

* While i think the idea for the selection committee is in total not bad
i am not sure if the board realizes how much pressure they put on
themselves in selecting this.  The acceptance and legitimacy of the
project by the OSM community to essentially spend 50k of community
money depends almost fully on the selection of this committee.  Should
the committee be perceived to be a group of political appointees who
did not qualify for this position based on merits of their past work in
the OSM community but who were put there to represent certain
subjective interests that would be very bad for the whole program and
the reputation of the OSMF.  OTOH this could of course also be an
opportunity for the board to show their appreciation for and trust in
the many qualified and selfless volunteers we have in the community.

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