Following today’s call, I volunteer a mapping of what we will call “fellowships” onto the administrative structure of OpenCare. “Fellowships” do not exist in the proposal. They are a generic name that helps us communicate our engagement strategy. Under the hood, they are three separate things. This needs to be clear to the EC: we communicate them in one bundle, but we are not being administratively messy. We are managing the complexity, making it transparent to the community. This is important, because it means we are not making a huge mess: we are asking for a clarification on exactly one point – and that is not to depart from the GA, but to comply with it.
- High quality procured posts, called provisionally "research fellowships" on the minisite. These are in the proposal as Deliverable 2.2, due at month 11. They form part of Task 2.1, "seed and drive the online conversation". Annex 1 of the GA, p. 14: "We procure 20 high quality blog posts to be posted on the OpenCare online space to kickstart the conversation and set the tone for constructive discussions. These will be released sequentially to make sure the discussions on each topic have enough time to grow. Sequentiality also makes it possible for valuable points to be re-launched or subjected to further examination by a growing number of people." Notice the use of the word "procure". The money to pay for this activity is taken by the staff budget of Edgeryders under WP2. The administrative mechanism is the equivalent appointing act for a collaborator. @LuceChiodelliUB 's four criteria for employment are met. Formally, we do not "reward" people: we hire them to write some stuff that will help us kickstart the conversation. If we are stricken by something they have already written, we ask them to write something else, because we are not allowed to reward and give prizes, but only to appoint people to do things we need done in the interest of the project.
- I am not familiar with the terms of EHFF's appointments (not mentioned on the minisite yet) but I'm guessing it's the same thing. They are using part of their staff costs budget to appoint people that come to us through the OpenCare conversation. These people then contribute towards tasks where EHFF has PMs. They get appointed through usual EHFF appointment procedures.
- Evaluation reports of community-driven care services, called provisionally "practice fellowships" on the minisite. These are in several places of OpenCare's official documents. As an activity, they are a part of task 1.2, "Outreach and onboarding". Annex 1 of the GA, p. 10: "We select, through an open competition (launched at month 5), a small number (4- 6) of ideas and grassroots, socially innovative initiatives around care, and provide them with modest funding to run each a formalized test. Tests will run in parallel with prototyping activities in WP3 and share their methodologies. the results of which will be fed back to the OpenCare conversation." The only direct deliverable here is D1.3, Open Call text, due at month 5. The money to pay for this activity comes from ScImpulse under other direct costs. The proposal mentions it on page 35, section 3.1 (Work plan – Work packages, deliverables and milestones): "we select, through an open competition, a small number of prototypes for ideas already being developed in the community; and provide them with seed funding and support in return for them testing their own ideas and sharing the results with OpenCare". It's also in Table 3.4b (‘Other direct cost’ items), p. 65: "Funding to be made available to the community by an open call for prototype proposals". This is the only administrative mechanism that needs to be disentangled.
Et voilà, Guy @melancon ! 
Hope it’s clearer.