@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Materials within this repository were developed with the support of the [Open Li
...
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Materials within this repository were developed with the support of the [Open Li
The community strategy has been developed using materials shared by the [Center for Scientific Collaboration and Community Engagement - CSCCE](https://www.cscce.org) - community of practice. Guidance in community management and support has been generously provided by members of CSCCE. 🙏
The community strategy has been developed using materials shared by the [Center for Scientific Collaboration and Community Engagement - CSCCE](https://www.cscce.org) - community of practice. Guidance in community management and support has been generously provided by members of CSCCE. 🙏
Other resources have also been developed following example materials developed by [The Turing Way](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/welcome). 🙏
Other resources have also been developed following example materials developed by [The Turing Way](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/welcome). 🙏 We are particularly grateful to the Turing way for the publication of the [Book Dash Application and assessment rubric]https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/community-handbook/bookdash/bookdash-application.html, which we sought to replicate as a model of best practice in inclusive and narrative based decision making and transparency. 🌺✨
`The Turing Way Community, Becky Arnold, Louise Bowler, Sarah Gibson, Patricia Herterich, Rosie Higman, … Kirstie Whitaker. (2019, March 25). The Turing Way: A Handbook for Reproducible Data Science. Zenodo http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3233853.`
`The Turing Way Community, Becky Arnold, Louise Bowler, Sarah Gibson, Patricia Herterich, Rosie Higman, … Kirstie Whitaker. (2019, March 25). The Turing Way: A Handbook for Reproducible Data Science. Zenodo http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3233853.`
...
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Resources for creating the our community documentation hackathons have been crea
...
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Resources for creating the our community documentation hackathons have been crea
The Git and GitLab tutorials have been recreated from material developed for the Open Life Sciences (OLS-2) cohort training session on using GitHub for collaborative documentation. 🙏
The Git and GitLab tutorials have been recreated from material developed for the Open Life Sciences (OLS-2) cohort training session on using GitHub for collaborative documentation. 🙏
Announce Monday 1st November. First call Wednesday 3rd November
Call Wed 09:30-11:00. First 6 weeks = every week, then monthly thereafter.
see [schedule](../programme)
## How to apply
Please review the notes on [eligibility](../logistics#who-can-be-an-ambassador) and [time commitment](../expectations#time-commitment) before applying.
When you apply you will be asked to confirm that you have discussed your application with your supervisor or line manager and they are supportive.
### Applications questions
**To apply, please complete the form available here: [MS Forms Application, requires log in to an @ox.ac.uk account](https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=G96VzPWXk0-0uv5ouFLPkYMD50Te0q5HobQjqRFNJmpUNTdHUUJJTDJOTDZJWVZPR1dGQ1pCTTJGSS4u).
The above linked application form asks 3 questions to assess your interest and intentions for becoming an Ambassador. You will be asked to respond to each of the following in 100-150 words:
1. Why you are interested in becoming and Ambassador?
2. What you will contribute to the Ambassadors team and wider Open WIN community?
3. What you will gain from being an Ambassador?
You will then be asked to let us know about any logistical constraints you might have with participation according to our [proposed schedule](../program)
We would like our Ambassadors to represent the full diversity of our community. We therefore ask our applications if they consider themselves to be a member of one or more historically underrepresented groups. We will also ask you your career stage, to ensure we get diverse representation.
Your data will be stored in University approved systems (One Drive and MS Teams). Your de-identified data will be shared with select members a selection of the Open Neuroimaging Project Steering group for the purposes of scoring your application.
## How your application will be assessed
Your application will be reviewed by [Open WIN Community Engagement Coordinator](../../community/community-who/#community-coordinator---cassandra-gould-van-praag-sheher). Where the strength of the application is unclear, another member of the [Open Neuroimaging Steering Group](https://www.win.ox.ac.uk/open-win/open-win-projects) will be invited to review the application.
### Assessment rubric
Each of the "interests and intentions" questions will be scored between 1 to 3, where 3=criteria fully met, 2=criteria partially met, and 1=criteria not met. To avoid personal bias, each of these scores is clearly defined for every question in the application review form as below. This rubric aims to evaluate the application across multiple aspects and avoid any personal bias which reviewers may have.
Reviewers will consider the following questions:
1. Has the applicant answered the application questions?
2. Does the applicant have a clear, feasible, and relevant idea of how they will contribute to the Open WIN community?
3. Is the applicant enthusiastic about open science and the aims of Open WIN Community?
These positions will be opporationalised by reference against the following descriptors:
| Sections | Score 1 | Score 2 | Score 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Readiness for the Ambassador programme: | (not ready) Does not provide enough information or seems to misunderstand the nature of the Open WIN Community and the Ambassador programme | (enthusiastic) Seems to have a clear understanding of Open WIN Community and the Ambassador programme brings along a specific skill or content for contributions | (clear) Seems to have a clear understanding of the Open WIN Community and the Ambassador programme and a clear understanding of how they can contribute and collaborate with others |
| Goals for the contributions: | (not ready) Shares vague or general ideas that are unrelated to the Open WIN Community and the Ambassador programme, or no goals at all | (enthusiastic) Shares clear, overly ambitious ideas for the Open WIN Community and the Ambassador programme that can likely be refined in a brainstorming session. | (clear) Shares clear, achievable contribution/development ideas for the Open WIN Community Ambassador programme event that fits goals and mission and are likely to be achieved through the applicant’s participation |
| Purpose of participation and what they will get out of the Ambassador programme: | (not ready) Purposes for participation in the Ambassador programme seem almost entirely self-centered and about the applicant’s status, rather than about participating in Open WIN Community to develop the project | (enthusiastic) Purposes for the participation in the Ambassador programme are not completely clear from the application or are limited (even though useful), such as typo or bug fixing | (clear) Purposes for participation in the Ambassador programme are valuable in many ways and are likely to help the applicant to become an active contributor to the Open WIN community and take ownership of their work in the broader open science ecosystem in their own rights |
| Willingness to collaborate and contribute after the programme: | (not ready) Seems closed to collaborative ways of working or more interested in only one aspect of outputs, research or related topic | (enthusiastic) Seems excited to learn from others and Open WIN project, but in a general way without much understanding of what those things mean yet | (clear) Seems excited to collaborate with others and is motivated to contribute to the Open WIN community |
1. Applicants who score mostly 1s do not have a clear understanding of the overall goals of Open WIN Community.
2. Applicants who score mostly 2s are enthusiastic if not wholly suitable for the Ambassadors programme, for example, they may come with some ideas for a contribution that is currently not in the scope of the programme or community.
3. Applicants who score mostly 3s are clearly ready, goal-oriented, interested in contributing to the project, and excited to learn from others in the programme and community.
The reviewer will provide a 1-2 sentence summary about the application to justify the above scoring. They will also highlight any diversity characteristics which were disclosed. These will be combined with the "mostly 1s, 2s or 3s" decision above, and the reviewer will make a final decision as to whether they recommend the applicant for the programme ("Yes", "No", "Unsure"). Any applications which are graded as "Unsure" will be put to another member of the Steering Group for evaluation following the same rubric. Six to ten applicants will be invited to participate in the programme.
## Timeline
Applications open: Monday 27th September
Applications close: Monday 18th October 17:00
Applications reviewed: Tuesday 19th - Friday 29th October
Ambassadors informed of outcome: Monday 1st November
First Meeting: Wednesday 3rd November
## Acknowledgements
These application questions, scoring rubric and explanation of diversity selection are adapted from the [Mozilla Open Leaders](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/mozilla-open-leaders/), [Open Life Science](https://openlifesci.org) and [Turing Way Book Dash](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/community-handbook/bookdash.html) programs.
