[Oceania-Board] Microgrants and Good Mojo procedures and questions

Mon Nov 1 16:11:58 PDT 2021

Hi Eli
Thanks for this work - I remember last year there was also some discussion
on this.
Here are my thoughts:
1) Original application - what is money being spent on? Can the board have
access to the full application?

   - This has to sit with the grant group and should sit with them and not
   be open up to the board. We shouldn't be micro-managing these things.
   - Loomio is a great vehicle for this as the action is simple after
   consideration has been given.
   - Perhaps there just needs to be a brief summary in point form in Loomio
   in an attached excel/doc???

2)How and why the application has been approved, and if there were any
conflicts of interest, how they have been managed

   - So I see the difference between the 2 programs is that one is applied
   for (the Microgrants) and the Good Mojo is at the Board's discretion and to
   be able to funnel funds in areas that show they need some backing or for
   some ideas - perhaps there is a governing statement on what criteria it
   meets.
   - The Good Mojo fund policy is something definitely to be worked on, but
   from my perspective, if the board agrees to it, and it is something that
   benefits the community to participate in OSGeo Oceania activities, then I
   think it is currently fitting the bill.

3)      What guarantee do we have that the money is spent on what it was
originally agreed to?
4)      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?

   - I am happy for it to be built on trust. The only thing here is are we
   meeting the requirements for when we get audited? Will receipts do it?]

*On the last note:*

   - If the group is happy the requirements are there for the funding to be
   given, I think it needs to be given to ensure the requestee is ready for
   the conference.
   - If someone from the finance committee sits on the microgrants/mojo
   group, and they are ok with it, then I can't see why there is an issue for
   it to be transferred.
   - I don't know enough but is there a limit that the group can approve up
   till until the board needs to be involved?  Perhaps this can work that
   under $1k is approved by the group and then over that it just needs to be
   tabled at the next board meeting or via Loomio? I just don't want it be too
   micro-managed but am also aware of our role as caretakers for theses
   resources.

*Thanks again for your stewardship in these great endeavours. *
*Cheers*
*Em*

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:08 PM eli <elipuccioni at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> 1.      Original application - what is money being spent on? Can the
> board have access to the full application?
>
> 2.      How and why the application has been approved, and if there were
> any conflicts of interest, how they have been managed
>
> 3.      What guarantee do we have that the money is spent on what it was
> originally agreed to?
>
> 4.      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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> Regarding n.2. we do have a guideline here in the Microgrant document (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QqVd5LT4l6cwr5WZXYV1AX8X09T48irv/edit)
> 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 (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F0hgEyBPJ2EL0jZtqn0Av88Zmg6eTS7mUCEdEALujOg/edit#heading=h.95t0ev3wjads).
> 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.
>
> 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 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. 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks all for reading this long email, I’m really looking forward to your
> feedback and suggestions!
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Elisa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania-Board mailing list
> Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania-board/attachments/20211102/436ee54c/attachment.html>