ChaosPad V1.1
Full screen

Server Notice:

hide

Public Pad Latest text of pad kShSHtAiWS Saved Feb 21, 2022

 
# Feedback from dev@openstreetmap.org
 
### Simon Poole
 
Shouldn't '... ensure their proposal is judged on technical merits' be '... ensure their proposal is judged on technical and economical merits' or similar wording?
 
I'm assuming that whatever the elusive scoring criteria turn put to be, they will contain something that rates priceworthiness. [will address this on line 36 by generalizing criteria]
 
# Highlighted Feedback from Discord
 
-------------------------------------
 
> Project participants must adhere to Community guidelines and should be in good community standing.
 
Link here to said guidelines would be useful.[let's add this]
 
Is "project participants" here referring to paid developer or all participants in given project? If the first one, then I would try to find some word to avoid confusing conflict "project" as in "paid work done as a part of that grant" and "work done by a software project in general" [let's add all project participants to make sure this is general]
 
-------------------------------------
 
"tender" sounds a bit weird and feels like term from highly bureaucratic project where you produce primarily paperwork, improvement plans, diversity statements, commitments to excellence, extensive and pointless plans etc rather than something useful, but it may be just me
 
proposal, offer, submission, idea are ones that appear viable to me
 
Request for Proposals
 
[let's go with Project Funding Framework]
 
-------------------------------------
 
> Starting with the announcement of the request for tender there will be a 14 day period in which tenders can be submitted.
 
It is a bit short, maybe give a bit more time?
 
[let's generalize this to a project by project basis]
 
-------------------------------------
 
> Tenders for a given project will be discussed in private to protect the privacy of applicants and scored by members of the Engineering Working Group.
 
Can you make scoring at least public?
Just in case it got lost in the styling discussion: I think that at least scoring outcomes should be public. Yes, losers can nitpick and complain but alternative "we selected this one, process is secret" is quite problematic. Especially in case of OSMF growing in size.
 
You may end with 100% mystery meat like WMF where hundreds millions dollars go in, are spend on noone knows what and why. And both donators/contributor only get "donate more" and some statics so broad that they are useless. It would be nice to try avoiding it.
 
I think that transparency is not something that should be added once project grows in size but something present from start. 
 
Could be some privacy option that when submitting application, requester could set personal scoring threshold smth like "do not make scoring of this request public if it gets less than X points" and/or "hide explanatory comments or actual score from final results if request gets less than Y (X<Y) points".
Those who opt out, they would still receive full scoring report via preferred communication channel (PM/DM or email). 
 
[let's add publically in front of scored. let's add note about how we will publically score the proposal. The EWG will discuss the bids in private. roland: it would be nice to avoid longer setences.]
 
-------------------------------------
 
> Project length should be no longer than 6 months.
 
Is it OK to have start date say 6 months in future and then work to last for 6 months?
 
["counted from the start of actual work"]
 
-------------------------------------
 
> Before a request for tender there will be a public review of project ideas, both those generated by members of the Engineering Working Group and those solicited from the wider community.
 
Is it intended to give funding for continuing work on existing projects?
 
[Add line in elegibility criteria about this]
 
-------------------------------------
 
 
 
# Complete discussion on Discord
 
### atomoil — 13/02/2022
Hi all,
 
the Engineering Working Group (EWG) wants to support OpenStreetMap's open-source software ecosystem. To this end, we are working towards the first iteration of a grant programme. Because this will be a learning experience for us, we plan to start with a relatively small amount of work on core OSM software. Future rounds will be open to a larger spectrum of software and proposals.
 
As a first step, we've compiled a framework to guide our selection and funding process:
We would like to invite the community to review it and provide feedback.
 
By the way: the Engineering Working Group is still welcoming people who want to join as members. We're also looking for people who can help with taking notes during our public meetings, which take place every two weeks.
 
You can read more about what we do and who we are at
Tendering Framework
Engineering Working Group
 
### Mateusz Konieczny [PL] — 13/02/2022
 
> Project participants must adhere to Community guidelines and should be in good community standing.
 
Link here to said guidelines would be useful.
 
Is "project participants" here referring to paid developer or all participants in given project? If the first one, then I would try to find some word to avoid confusing conflict "project" as in "paid work done as a part of that grant" and "work done by a software project in general" 
 
-------------------------------------
 
"tender" sounds a bit weird and feels like term from highly bureaucratic project where you produce primarily paperwork, improvement plans, diversity statements, commitments to excellence, extensive and pointless plans etc rather than something useful, but it may be just me
 
> Starting with the announcement of the request for tender there will be a 14 day period in which tenders can be submitted.
 
It is a bit short, maybe give a bit more time?
 
> Tenders for a given project will be discussed in private to protect the privacy of applicants and scored by members of the Engineering Working Group.
 
Can you make scoring at least public?
 
> Project length should be no longer than 6 months.
 
Is it OK to have start date say 6 months in future and then work to last for 6 months?
 
> Before a request for tender there will be a public review of project ideas, both those generated by members of the Engineering Working Group and those solicited from the wider community.
 
Is it intended to give funding for continuing work on existing projects?
 
### atomoil — 13/02/2022
Hey @Mateusz Konieczny [PL] thanks for the feedback - I’ll make sure it gets discussed by the Engineering Working group - I only have 1 question: can you suggest a different word to “tender” that you think would be more appropriate?
 
### Mateusz Konieczny [PL] — 13/02/2022
proposal, offer, submission, idea are ones that appear viable to me
 
### ZeLonewolf [US-RI] — 13/02/2022
I'm a native English speaker and didn't understand tender.
 
### trigpoint [GB - Salop] — 13/02/2022
Tender can mean lots of things in English, where coal/wood is kept for a steam engine or legal tender as in money which can be used to make payment.
Put out to tender, which is this usage means where one puts out a requirement and invites others to propose solutions and costs. Very common in building and engineering
It seems the right phrase to me as a native English speaker
 
### Eiim [US-OH] — 13/02/2022
I'll second @ZeLonewolf [US-RI]'s confusion, I assumed it meant currency, as in legal tender
 
### Eiim [US-OH] — 13/02/2022
I'm not familiar with this usage, perhaps because I'm not an engineer ??
 
### trigpoint [GB - Salop] — 13/02/2022
Its also used in building and anything where you want others  to bid to do something
 
### Eiim [US-OH] — 13/02/2022
I would guess that their target audience of software developers probably aren't frequently involved in bidding on development projects
 
### trigpoint [GB - Salop] — 13/02/2022
They aren't, but it is a common enough phrase which you hear on news reports
Thornton and Lowe
Thornton & Lowe
Invitation To Tender Simply Explained I Thornton & Lowe
We simply explain everything you need to know about an invitation to tender, what it is, what it should look like and our top tips to respond and win the bid.
 
### Eiim [US-OH] — 13/02/2022
Maybe you do, but again, I never have
I can accept that it's a word that can be used to mean what they want it to mean, but I think it's an unnecessarily confusing one, as evidenced by the fact that Mateusz, Brian, and I all expressed confusion over it
 
### trigpoint [GB - Salop] — 13/02/2022
Its standard English, I do not know what the Amercan is
 
### atomoil — 13/02/2022
Great feedback, thanks everyone. If there’s anything else that could be improved please don’t hesitate to raise it - ideally here but private messages to me (or any other member of the engineering working group) could also work.
 
### Ds5rUy [AU-QLD] — 13/02/2022
I had no trouble understanding the term.
 
### ZeLonewolf [US-RI] — 13/02/2022
I'm an engineer.
Sounds to me like it's just more commonly used in British flavors of English.
What comes to mind is "tender a resignation"
 
### trigpoint [GB - Salop] — 13/02/2022
Thats another use
If the US government wants for example a new interstate for example, I assume they invite companies to provide solutions and costs?
 
### ZeLonewolf [US-RI] — 13/02/2022
Yes, that would be an RFP typically
Request for Proposals
Or a solicitation
 
### Eiim [US-OH] — 13/02/2022
I've also seen RFQ, Request for Qualifications, although RFP makes more sense
 
### trigpoint [GB - Salop] — 13/02/2022
That sounds menacing
 
### ZeLonewolf [US-RI] — 13/02/2022
Yeah, that one's less common
 
### Eiim [US-OH] — 13/02/2022
There, RFQ means Request for Quote, which makes much more sense than Qualification lol
 
### ZeLonewolf [US-RI] — 13/02/2022
Yeah, that makes sense when the thing being solicited is more firmly understood
 
### Eiim [US-OH] — 13/02/2022
Although Qualifications is definitely also used, I guess in the sense that you're trying to find a qualified firm for the project?
Image
 
### SomeoneElse — 13/02/2022
I've responded to ITTs/RFQs over many years. Looking through old work notes, the American ones are all RFQ, the UK and European ones ITT
 
### tomczk — 13/02/2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_tender woah there is a lot of these 3 letter acronyms (Related proposal types section)
Invitation to tender
An invitation to tender (ITT, otherwise known as a call for bids or a request for tenders) is a formal, structured procedure for generating competing offers from different potential suppliers or contractors looking to obtain an award of business activity in works, supply, or service contracts, often from companies who have been previously assess...
 
### tomczk — 13/02/2022
Are the public reviews going to be a continuous process or some kind of scheduled event every year/quarter/month/"whenever people feel like it"?
 
### atomoil — 13/02/2022
We’d like to get feedback on the Tendering Framework (which sounds like it needs a new name ??) before the first round of grants. So far we don’t have a concrete plan beyond that, as we need to see how things go. As the Engineering Working Group is made up of volunteers I would say we’d want to keep things as simple as possible and so personally I’d advocate for only reviewing things again if it’s felt that a review is necessary. 
 
### ZeLonewolf [US-RI] — 13/02/2022
That seems to be what we've all learned today.
 
### Mateusz Konieczny [PL] — 13/02/2022
Just in case it got lost in the styling discussion: I think that at least scoring outcomes should be public. Yes, losers can nitpick and complain but alternative "we selected this one, process is secret" is quite problematic. Especially in case of OSMF growing in size.
 
You may end with 100% mystery meat like WMF where hundreds millions dollars go in, are spend on noone knows what and why. And both donators/contributor only get "donate more" and some statics so broad that they are useless. It would be nice to try avoiding it.
 
I think that transparency is not something that should be added once project grows in size but something present from start. 
 
### atomoil — 13/02/2022
Thanks for re-iterating but I already have your thought noted and will definitely share with the working group ??
For what it’s worth I 100% agree that everything must remain as open and transparent as possible but we also want to balance that with respect for any proposal which doesn’t get picked and don’t want them publicly shamed by a low score and don’t want to put people off on that basis. There has already been a lot of conversation in the working group around this, so your thoughts and indeed anyone else’s are definitely welcome.
 
### test9 [EST] — 13/02/2022
Could be some privacy option that when submitting application, requester could set personal scoring threshold smth like "do not make scoring of this request public if it gets less than X points" and/or "hide explanatory comments or actual score from final results if request gets less than Y (X<Y) points".
Those who opt out, they would still receive full scoring report via preferred communication channel (PM/DM or email).