Straight forward feedback on why the application was denied is beneficial to all participants and reduces the drama fuel. Why not?
GM
nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f is a unpaid 100% passthrough volunteer organization.
The whole team genuinely cares about the mission.
We have extremely very diverse opinions and backgrounds and very limited operational resources for the volume of applications.
No application is decided by a single person. We also have committee of also volunteer peers who also opine and vote. Once the committee votes with soft ACKs. We have a minimum of 5 positive votes by the board for approval policy.
Everyone and their applications are considered! But we are not going to fund everything. After careful volunteer time is used for reviews a vote is made.
There are many orgs with different methods.
No one is entitled to be funded. Pro tip, be graceful. Aside from being extremely unprofessional to shit on OpenSats in public, you are shitting on unpaid ppl who are trying to do their best and are not perfect. We simply don't have the time and resources (and shouldn't waste money) on giving each and everyone a very detailed feedback. we are talking about hundreds of applications and a dozen ppl here.
Criticism is very much always welcomed and encouraged. We need to know what we can do better.
If you truly care about improving, send a fucking EMAIL. Bitching in public only hurts the ppl who are doing the work.
The FOSS funding will continue until freedom improves ✌️
Discussion
Whos going to write the feedback?
Whoever is keeping meeting minutes during the vote, perhaps? I'm assuming there's some discussion of the acceptance criteria and then a vote.
and simply share the notes and remove the names for privacy if that is the issue.
Or have AI write a summary for each application discussed.
Someone should start an org with all those ideas. There is need for even more options.
You asked a question. I gave you a reasonable answer.
It is fair to assume that the selection and evaluation is being recorded, in some way, as that is standard practice for meetings.
Simply structure the process, from the beginning, so that it is transparent, in the end. That will lower the amount of effort required, in the mid-term, not raise it.
How is feedback not a requirement, but instead a cop-out: "it's simply too resource intensive"