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

Mon Nov 1 20:10:57 PDT 2021

Hey Folks

   1. 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.
   2. See 1.
   3. 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.

Regarding approvals, we actually already cover off who can approve what in
the Finance Policy.

See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WtJGVLfbaaQ7j8G6hI86FJgFNFAgEv9X/edit

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.

Cheers,

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 10:14, Edoardo Neerhut <eneerhut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Elisa,
>
> Thanks for following up with a board email on this topic. Here are my 2
> cents on each topic.
>
>    1. 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.
>    2. I don't have concerns with this currently, but the clearer we can
>    make this each cycle, the better.
>    3. 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:
>       - A detailed quote from the good or service provider that(s) that
>       breaks down the projected cost
>       - A contingency plan if the quote diverges from actuals
>       - Receipt to be provided within x number of days after the event
>    4. 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).
>
> 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!!!).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 19:08, 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania-Board mailing list
> Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board
>

-- 
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania-board/attachments/20211102/9ef12a75/attachment.html>