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.

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.

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.

Selection Process

The selection process includes the following steps:

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 Emailing 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 and a statement of interest.
• Eligibility Check: Conduct an initial review to verify that all nominees meet the basic eligibility criteria.

3. Review and Shortlisting

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

4. Interviews (if applicable)

• Interview/Review Panel: Formation of an interview and/or Review panel.
• Interviews: Conducting interviews and reviewings with shortlisted candidates to assess their suitability.
• Final Selection: Final selection of jurors based on interview performance and overall fit.

5. Announcement and Orientation

• Notification: Notifying selected jurors and thanking all applicants.
• Public Announcement: Announcing the selected jurors publicly.
• Possible Orientation: Conducting an orientation session for the selected jurors to explain their roles, responsibilities, and the evaluation process.

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.

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.

Timeline

Step	Date
Call for Nominations	[Start Date] - [End Date]
Application Submission	[Start Date] - [End Date]
Review and Shortlisting	[Start Date] - [End Date]
Interviews/Reviews (if applicable)	[Start Date] - [End Date]
Announcement and Orientation	[Start Date] - [End Date]

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"