Microgrants/Committee/Minutes/2020-04-30
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