[Osmf-talk] microgrants - second draft policy document

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 13 January 2020, Joost Schouppe wrote:
>
> Please provide feedback before January 28th, so that we can
> potentially look at this at the next Board meeting Jan 30th.

To not keep this thread completely dominated by the meta-discussion on
the form and procedures of document development a few comments on the
actual draft:

* as i said before the overall concept of this draft looks quite
positive to me.

* many of the points of my previous comments:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2019-October/006294.html

still apply (with the exception of the progress made on the follow-up on
projects - more on that below) I would encourage the new board members
to look over these previous comments.

* the promise to try facilitating translations will not eliminate the
problems of language and culture bias.  Selecting a commitee based on
English language capability will inevitably introduce a significant
bias into its composition which would propagate into the selection even
with a highly supportive translation service being provided to
applicants (which is often difficult in the first place).

* i see a problem with the idea of the same people doing the selection
of projects being involved in follow-up on these projects.  Someone who
has made the decision to select a certain project will often have the
tendency to justify that decision afterwards.  This is in conflict with
the aim to accompany the projects with critical evaluation for doing
what they were selected to do within the principles and rules of the
program.  Put more bluntly:  Sacking a project for not abiding by the
rules would require the committee to admit they have made an error in
judgement. I see there are also reasons for combining the two tasks but
the described issue can IMO not be ignored.  It could also increase the
tendency to select by cultural commonality (preference of people to
select projects they personally would want to work with later).

* connected to the previous point:  If you want the aim for the program
to be language and culture agnostic and the idea of following up on the
project in substance both to be serious having project supervisors who
are able to communicate with the grant recipients in their native
language would probably be essential.  These do not necessarily have to
be part of a formal committee of course.  But having people who - from
the outside and not being part of the projects themselves - accompany
the progress of the projects for their duration would be quite
significant.

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