Microgrants/Committee/Minutes/2020-04-30

From OpenStreetMap Foundation
< Microgrants‎ | Committee
Revision as of 13:27, 3 May 2020 by Joost schouppe (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''OpenStreetMap Foundation, Microgrants Commitee - Agenda & notes'''<br> '''Meeting on Jitsi'''<br> == Participants == * Hanna Krüger * Chris Beddow * Janet Chapman * Cl...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

OpenStreetMap Foundation, Microgrants Commitee - Agenda & notes
Meeting on Jitsi

Participants

  • Hanna Krüger
  • Chris Beddow
  • Janet Chapman
  • Clifford Snow
  • Joost Schouppe

Excused: Geoffrey Katerrega

Agenda

Previous Action items

  • Developing form for selected projects - agreement to conditions

New discussion:

* tax handling?
    - direct billing through OSMF?
    - connect applicants with an organization?
    - or through OpenCollective? > Chris & Ian Dees
* how to know?
    - Ask HOT - Rebecca? > Clifford
    - Ask Guillaume - accountant
    > created a ticket at https://gitlab.com/osmfoundation/microgrants/-/issues/6

v - Hanna to take care of adding dates to OSM Calendar v - Christopher to contact Dorothea with request to make Blog post & tweet out officially v - Dorothea and comms WG - ask to share the blog post widely (OSMUS Blog/newsletter, etc - ideas pending) v - Each member share to relevant groups: Telegram, email, social media

  • Clifford to mail link to OSMF-talk and OSM-talk

v - Joost to change link in diary post to blog post

  • Consider a post-submission/award survey to gather demographic information on applicants for review
  • Document the selection process


Waste mapping proposal

General consensus to NOT accept proposal including the renting of a conference room

Public meetings?

  • the policy outline says the committee should function "open by default", which explicitly allows (some) closed sessions

> the Committee would like to be able to work without external observers for now. We will run by the Board; and revisit the topic when the selection process itself comes up.

Open Action items

- prepare communications to invite feedback about the proposals (once the deadline has passed) v - Clifford to mail link to OSMF-talk and OSM-talk (NOTE: done May 1st) - Consider a post-submission/award survey to gather demographic information on applicants for review - Document the selection process - in the wiki. Check if this is feasible with OSMF policy: essentially disqualify any submissions that fail to meet requirements, then check if total requested of all qualified exceeds budget, if so eliminate one project at a time based on which would be least fit and desirable by community and board subjective feedback, and repeat the process of elimination until budget is not exceeded. New discussion:

* Also make a spreadsheet
 * qualifies yes/no
 * start with general rating, go in specifics if need be - possibly "impact" + "feasability". Note: keep in mind some are not native speakers!


Next meeting(s)

Monday, May 11th, same time