Juror Selection process

[salimbaidoun-tomtom]

Juror Selection Process for Microgrants

This issue details the selection process for jurors responsible for reviewing and evaluating microgrant applications. This process is run by the EWG, who hold responsibility for decisions on the assessment and final selection.

Objective

The objective is to create a transparent, fair, and efficient process for selecting jurors who will contribute diverse perspectives and expertise to evaluating microgrant applications.

Responsibilities of Jurors

• Evaluation: Carefully evaluating and scoring each application according to predefined criteria.
• Feedback: Offering constructive feedback on applications submitted.
• Confidentiality: Maintaining confidentiality of application contents.
• Meetings: Participating in review meetings as required.

Selection Criteria

Jurors will be selected based on the following criteria:

1. Expertise: Possessing relevant knowledge and experience in the field related to the microgrant themes.
2. Diversity: Inclusion of diverse backgrounds, gender, ethnicity, geography, and professional disciplines.
3. Fairness: Capacity to review applications impartially and without any conflicts of interest.
4. Commitment: Readiness to dedicate the necessary time and effort to thoroughly evaluate applications.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Jurors are expected to openly disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may arise from personal or professional affiliations. This transparency ensures the integrity of the evaluation process by preventing biased assessments. If a conflict of interest is identified, jurors are required to recuse themselves from reviewing the respective application to uphold fairness and impartiality in the selection process. This practice not only reinforces accountability but also promotes trust among applicants and stakeholders involved in the microgrant program.

Selection Process

1. Call for Nominations

• Announcement: Public announcement of the call for juror nominations via relevant channels (Community Forum/s mainly).
• Nomination Email: Nominations will be accepted via email to the EWG (Engineering Working Group)

2. Application Submission

• Submission Period: Nominees will be given a specified period to submit their applications, which should include a CV (or other simple description of relevant experience) and a statement of interest.
• Eligibility Check: EWG conducts an initial review to verify that all nominees meet basic eligibility criteria.

3. Review and Shortlisting

• Review Panel: EWG will for a review panel consisting of EWG members and/or previous jurors.
• Evaluation: Panel evaluates applications based on the selection criteria.
• Shortlist: Panel creates of a shortlist of potential jurors.

4. Discussions (if applicable)

• Interviews: Panel conducts (either live or written) conversations with, and reviews shortlisted candidates to assess their suitability.
• Final Selection: Panel recommends a final selection of jurors based on interview performance and overall fit. EWG votes to adopt the jurors.

5. Announcement and Orientation

• Notification: EWG notifies selected jurors and thanks all applicants.
• Public Announcement: EWG announces the selected jurors publicly.
• Possible Orientation: EWG conducts an orientation session for the selected jurors to explain their roles, responsibilities, and the evaluation process.

Timeline

Step	Date
Call for Nominations	2024/11/22 - 2024/12/06
Review and Shortlisting	2024/12/09 - 2024/12/13
Interviews and Selection (if applicable)	2024/12/16 - 2024/12/20
Announcement and Orientation	January 2025

Contact Information

For any questions or further information, please contact:

• Name: Salim Baidoun @salimbaidoun-tomtom and Mikel Maron @mikelmaron
• Email: engineering@osmfoundation.org

[mikelmaron]

Adding a few notes on review; will edit later post-discussion

• I'm not sure we need to require a full CV. Maybe CV or other description of relevant experience.
• What is "basic eligibilty"?
• Expect there will be questions about the review, shortlisting and final selection. I think cleanest governance wise is to make it EWG vote, with input from previous jurors.
• I'm also not sure if interview step will be needed. At least formal interviews with a panel. Maybe we call this "discussion with short list candidates"

[mikelmaron]

EWG members are not strictly prohibited from joining jury selection, but we strongly encourage other volunteers to step forward. There should at least be liaison between jury and EWG. If someone does put themselves forward as juror, they would of course not take part in the vote on composition of jury, nor on other EWG decision points.

[SomeoneElseOSM]

@mikelmaron Maybe if the timeline had some actual dates in it people would know that it was something that was happening now and not at some to-be-determined time in the future?

[mikelmaron]

@SomeoneElseOSM this is a design of the process, we are still working on determining the timeline.