<div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks all for the replies, really appreciate the feedback and thoughts you're putting into this and definitely going to improve our communication and procedures based on this discussion.</div><div>I'm planning to review all the systems and include more detailed reporting/access to Loomio for the board as soon as we've done with the conference.</div><div><br></div><div>Would you all feel comfortable with Ed deciding if we're going to send money in advance to the Suva hub for their early career breakfast event? It's slightly under the $1000 AUD, but I think it would be important for them to have the money in advance to be able to organise it, apparently around 30 young professionals will be attending.</div><div>If you all agree and Ed gives the green light, would you mind sending the money to Lani, Alex? I can send back her details to you if needed.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Elisa<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno mar 2 nov 2021 alle ore 16:11 Alex Leith <<a href="mailto:alexgleith@gmail.com">alexgleith@gmail.com</a>> ha scritto:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hey Folks<div><br></div><div><ol><li>I think that the Board should have access to the application and the minutes, or some kind of record of the decision to fund. This is the kind of transparency and record keeping that we need. I agree that the Board doesn't need to be a gate keeper, or decision maker here, but if someone from the Board wants to know what applications have been received and which funded, that should be easily accessible.</li><li>See 1.</li><li>I feel pretty strongly that we should fund most things after the fact, so we know it happened and so that the people running the initiative have 'skin in the game'. This was advice given to us from the International FOSS4G organisers early on too. This handles 4 too. If we have receipts that show what the money was spent on, then we should have no hesitation in paying the funds out.</li></ol><div>Regarding approvals, we actually already cover off who can approve what in the Finance Policy.</div></div><div><br></div><div>See: <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WtJGVLfbaaQ7j8G6hI86FJgFNFAgEv9X/edit" target="_blank">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WtJGVLfbaaQ7j8G6hI86FJgFNFAgEv9X/edit</a></div><div><br></div><div>Note that for the expenditure for Kiribati, I just paid it, but for the Fiji funding, I asked Ed to approve it, as I wasn't comfortable approving it without more information.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 10:14, Edoardo Neerhut <<a href="mailto:eneerhut@gmail.com" target="_blank">eneerhut@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Elisa,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for following up with a board email on this topic. Here are my 2 cents on each topic.</div><div><ol><li>I agree with Elisa that the board should not weigh on each application. That shows a lack of trust in the committee and I don't want that to be the case. It'd be great if this information is available to the board for fiduciary reasons via Loomio or elsewhere, without the board needing to chime in.</li><li>I don't have concerns with this currently, but the clearer we can make this each cycle, the better.</li><li>For additional context, Greg raised a valid point about whether it is acceptable to send money without a clear idea of where it is going. We should focus on what the "clear idea" part here means and incorporate it into policies for both Good Mojo and Microgrants. Specific policy changes we could might make for funding in advance include:</li><ul><li>A detailed quote from the good or service provider that(s) that breaks down the projected cost</li><li>A contingency plan if the quote diverges from actuals</li><li>Receipt to be provided within x number of days after the event</li></ul><li>Case by case. We know money in advance is particularly important for the Pacific. If we set a cap on advanced fundings, we're effectively discriminating on the funds they have access to. Instead we should have stricter controls on what a valid request is (see point 3 above).</li></ol><div>On currently pending applications, don't be afraid to ask for more information to solidify the application. If we can do this quickly, we can ensure everyone gets the money they need before the conference next week (ahhh it's next week!!!).</div></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Ed</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 19:08, eli <<a href="mailto:elipuccioni@gmail.com" target="_blank">elipuccioni@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Hi all!<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">As we are in full swing with both microgrants and Good Mojo
applications, I had a few important issues brought to my attention and I’d like
to discuss them with all of you before carrying on with the grant group jobs.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The main concerns are rotating around how we approve a
microgrant and a GM request, the way we have decided to send funding (that’s
especially for GM), and the way I have communicated them to the board. More
specifically these questions have been raised:<span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%"><span>1.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Original
application - what is money being spent on? Can the board have access to the
full application?<span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%"><span>2.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>How and
why the application has been approved, and if there were any conflicts of
interest, how they have been managed<span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%"><span>3.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>What
guarantee do we have that the money is spent on what it was originally agreed to?<span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%"><span>4.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Why
does the money need to be paid in advance? (that’s referring to Good Mojo only).
Should we fix a threshold of $500 to send money in advance or not?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>I haven’t yet
consulted all the rest of the Grant group people about these issues, but I’m
sure they will be happy to step in the conversation if needed. I’d like to write
down my point of view about the questions raised, but I’m really happy to get
all the feedback and advice possible, as I feel that can lead to a better and
faster process to grant funding to the community.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Regarding the first
question: up to this moment the grant group discusses the applications via email
and Loomio and I have only reported the results to the board during board
meetings. I’m more than happy to open the Loomio discussion threads to all the
board to read, but I might ask, if possible, not to intervene in the discussion
directly and contact me for any issues, ideas or feedback. I feel if we need to
wait for the input of other 6-7 people that could considerably delay the process.
But happy to discuss it! Also, if any other person would love to join the grant
group and be actively involved in the discussion and voting, you’re all welcome
(board members and community members alike!). I will try to cut the
communications via email about the applications and put everything on Loomio. Sometimes
it has been faster just to forward the applications directly to the rest of the
group instead of copying and pasting it to Loomio, especially for the four GM requests
we’ve received, as they don’t have an application form but are sent directly to
the grants email. But I have of course all the emails saved; in case the board
wants to read them (respecting of course the privacy of the people involved).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Regarding n.2. we
do have a guideline here in the Microgrant document (<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QqVd5LT4l6cwr5WZXYV1AX8X09T48irv/edit" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);text-decoration:underline" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QqVd5LT4l6cwr5WZXYV1AX8X09T48irv/edit</span></a>)
and we have followed it. It addresses both how to approve an application and
what we do in case of conflict of interest. The GM funding purpose is
explained, not yet completely, in this document (<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F0hgEyBPJ2EL0jZtqn0Av88Zmg6eTS7mUCEdEALujOg/edit#heading=h.95t0ev3wjads" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);text-decoration:underline" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:107%">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F0hgEyBPJ2EL0jZtqn0Av88Zmg6eTS7mUCEdEALujOg/edit#heading=h.95t0ev3wjads</span></a>).
We have not created yet a complete guideline for the GM as we’re still in the
process to reorganise it to fit the new post covid reality and we’ve decided to
adapt the microgrant process to fit the GM requests of this year. I expect it
will be quite different from next year on (or at least I hope), maybe including
more events/activities in its scope, but for 2021 the GM funding is still
closely linked to the conference and has been sent or will be sent to hub
coordinators only. I do agree we should have written down a more comprehensive document
and I apologise for that, but in all honesty, we haven’t had time. I will
fill this gap asap after the conference, as I will need to organise another
meeting with the rest of the group to put them down together and it’s not
possible now. In order to build back the board's confidence in our process, I’ll happily
explain all the steps we have taken to approve three out of four requests for
this year.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>I think questions 3
and 4 are both referring to the Good Mojo requests, as it’s very rare that we
send microgrants in advance (it has happened only once, I think, just at the
beginning of the programme). I’d like to point out that for us the GM requests
are different from the microgrants: they are used by the hub coordinators </span>to
deliver initiatives related to inclusion, diversity, and sustainability. The
hubs are part of that, they're not outsiders asking for money to deliver their
own programs.<span> We of course request
receipts to be sent after the event is completed and we have a small system in
place in case not all the money is spent. In case just a small amount of money
is left, we will ask the organiser to donate them to a local charity of our choosing,
in case the amount is big, we will request a transfer back. I realise that this
system is based on trust, and I appreciate that not all the board members will
feel confident with it. We’ve put it in place especially for the GM applications
made by the hub organisers, as they are active members of the community who we
often know and have been working with. We feel they are entitled to be trusted, and
maybe receiving the funding in advance can help them organise a better
conference or reduce the stress. Of course, I think it’s important to discuss
this part with the rest of the board in case you don’t share the same
perspective.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>One last note on it,
following the above principles we have already sent GM funding to Kiribati, but
we’re holding the funding for Suva. Kiribati request was quite smaller than Suva,
and below $500 AUD, so it has been suggested to put $500 as threshold on the
amount of money to be sent in advance at this stage, till at least we have all
the guidelines written and approved. I think that could be a good idea to discuss
together, even if personally I’m not convinced that it’s completely fair. I
think that if a GM application is solid and approved, it should get the funding in
advance even if above the $500 AUD. The GM funding itself is rarely above the
$1000 mark anyway (well, at least it hasn’t been for this year!) and right now we
only have 2 requests of funding in advance, one already paid. So I’d say let’s
go ahead with Suva too, and then maybe change the procedure, if needed, from
next round?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Thanks all for
reading this long email, I’m really looking forward to your feedback and
suggestions!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Cheers,</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Elisa<br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span><span></span></span></p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Oceania-Board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Oceania-Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Oceania-Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Oceania-Board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Oceania-Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Oceania-Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Alex Leith<br></div>m: 0419189050</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Potrebbe andar peggio...potrebbe piovere<a>!</a><br></div></div></div>