Personnel Committee/Charter

From OpenStreetMap Foundation
< Personnel Committee
Revision as of 18:00, 23 September 2020 by Dorothea (talk | contribs) (Created page with "<font color="blue"> Discussion draft.</font> '''Content copied from Any updates will appear there first.''' The Personnel Committee...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Discussion draft.

Content copied from Any updates will appear there first.

The Personnel Committee is the point of contact and provides consistent HR and organizational support for people doing work for the Foundation for a majority of their time over the year, here called staff.

The Personnel Committee has Board member only composition. Each staff person has 2 individual points of contact, with each Board Member up for election in a different year. This insures continuity year on year.

Staff can raise any HR or other needs ad hoc with their committee points of contact. That could encompass changes in availability, scheduling leave, contractual issues, interpersonal issues, or other topics as needed. (We’d like to note here that any volunteers on OSMF working groups or the OSM community should also have an equal ability to ask the Board for help if they need; that door is definitely open by contacting any Board member, or the Board as whole).

Staff and points of contact schedule a regular check in meeting, every 1-2 months based on mutual agreement. The meeting is a brief check in on what’s moving and upcoming, goals set and goals met, and a chance to raise issues or request help. The topics should largely duplicate what is already shared and discussed in public reports and public meeting; the exception is for anything of personally confidential nature.

At least annually, the personnel committee would organize a performance review, to evaluate grounds for renewal or dismissal. This does not mean the committee directly assess performance by looking at technical work, but rather by evaluating engagement in the public record of the relevant working groups and community, and even possibly soliciting peer reviews; assessing if they are meeting standards for transparency and communication; as well as looking at the achievement of goals set by the staff themselves.