[Osmf-talk] Microgrants conflict of interest: an apology

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Tue Feb 2 23:06:01 UTC 2021

Am 02.02.2021 um 20:50 schrieb Pete Masters:
> Hi Simon, do you mind clarifying the PS? I'm not sure what it refers 
> to....
Assume that for the a project I submit an application that says 
something like

... doing X will require 40 hours of my time that I'll charge that at 
the bargain rate of $50/hour or whatever.

Project gets accepted and I can do with the money whatever I want, for 
example purchase the new computer that I need to get the work done and 
keep it after that.

or I submit for the same project an application that says

... doing X will require computer hardware that will cost ~$2'000, time 
is volunteered.

Project gets accepted and I purchase the computer, but I don't get to 
keep it once the project is completed.

The rule that hardware purchased via the grant scheme needs to handed 
over to the community was surely made with the best intentions, but it 
creates an imho an untenable difference in how the projects are treated.


> Cheers,
> Pete
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, 16:02 Simon Poole, <simon at poole.ch 
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>     Am 02.02.2021 um 16:24 schrieb Rory McCann:
>     > On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 15:44, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
>     <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>     >> Well better late than never, but naturally the damage has
>     already been
>     >> done given that it wasn't exactly secret that grants had gone
>     to groups
>     >> with close ties to the board.
>     > Huh? how do you mean “close ties”? OSM is small in some ways. It
>     wasn't obvious to me at the time of the vote that there were CoI
>     issues.
>     Well to some it was glaringly obvious.
>     >> The amazing thing though, is not that there are people seeking
>     grants
>     >> which would cause CoIs with board members, but that such
>     requests were,
>     >> and continue to be, permitted applications. They should have
>     never been,
>     >> I will share the blame in not noticing that appropriate rules were
>     >> missing way back, allowed in the first place.
>     > We're going to require that applicants do the work of telling us
>     of potentional CoIs with the board so we don't have to do the work.
>     >
>     > Surely if full CoI rules were followed it shouldn't matter if
>     someone close applies, because no-one close will vote. right? In
>     theory it would be the same as if the relevant board member wasn't
>     on the board.
>     I would agree if we are talking about normal contracts etc.,
>     however the
>     micro-grants scheme is a competitive bidding process in which the
>     applicants are competing with each other and clearly stricter rules,
>     providing a level playing field, should apply. As everywhere else
>     that I
>     know of for similar competitions.
>     So, no close relatives in the micro-grant committee, OSMF
>     "contractors"
>     and board, and no involvement of individuals of those three groups in
>     the applicants project. We are not just talking about direct CoIs
>     here,
>     close links to all three groups will have the potential to
>     influence the
>     decisions, if not actually, so definitely in appearance.
>     Simon
>     PS: if the rules get changed and if there is a next time: could
>     the the
>     ridiculous unequal treatment of people that sold their time and
>     got to
>     keep the funds vs. those that didn't charge for their time be
>     addressed?
>     _______________________________________________
>     osmf-talk mailing list
>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20210203/fabbdcf4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20210203/fabbdcf4/attachment.sig>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list