Oddbean

GM @OpenSats 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 ✌️

1. Email is for boomers. 2. If they have a stake in companies that are asking for opensats funding, they shouldn't be on the opensats board. 3. This is the internet, unprofessional is what we do. Case in point: this note is unprofessional as fuck.

OpenSats is in part funded by the general public – donations are solicited from everyone, and accepted via BTC and fiat. That's one reason why grants are made public: it'd be absurd for OpenSats to be spending money without disclosing who is getting it. But it's also absurd if the _rejected_ applications are entirely private too. Which is the status quo. Funders should have some idea of what they could have spent money on, and didn't. All I did was reveal two rejected applications. If that is enough to constitue serious drama, you should rethink what you're doing... nostr:nevent1qqswx60ffrdslpq2hnm3am2sraapnz9s0emkh482jdk205rf09yqhzspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsyg8g3f53axxenp7fv3fpmlmqqf0kquqr0zjg0yvqmjamffgz0pgyzypsgqqqqqqs3dny47

Could you also give some criteria for which applications are more likely to be accepted? This is a bit of a mystery, at the moment, but I'm sure future applicants would appreciate knowing what you are specifically looking for, in an application. Is there some sort of checklist you could post on your website?

@pkt brought up a really good point (though I know very little details beyond their response to this thread https://primal.net/e/note1d9ca5vcpyrlhw7npt6mx2p3vh043zfzxfgj68takdnmjy96x94zsnevj5d) If someone's application is rejected, isn't it within their right to broadcast the contents of their application, and to voice their frustrations with the OpenSats system? Again, I don't have all the details here, but I'd think a bit of open criticism, or, ahem, "bitching" as a direct quote from @NVK, would potentially improve the system by putting a bit of public attention on a failing point of OpenSats?

Demanding of both someone else's time and their money and acting entitled about it is not a "failing" of those being demanded of. And of course it is their right to say whatever they think, but in my opinion it is of extremely poor character and will only reflect on them, not OpenSats. Nobody is owed anything, not an explanation, not a thorough analysis of their project. Nothing. Do you even comprehend how much time and energy it would take to do that?

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.

The organization that’s taken in 10s of millions of dollars maybe? You insinuated that responding to dozens of people is to burdensome maybe you should step down and give your spot to someone who can allocate the proper amount of time to respond to applicants. Without applicants opensats is nothing. Opensats owes everything to those that apply, if not opensats wouldn’t have a purpose. You seem to have a problem with having open conversations, what’s the issue with having a discussion in public? The reason is you don’t want feed back you want yes men. Get off your fucking high horse bro.