The applicant is a software developer who has applied for the Exceptional Promise route selecting Optional Criteria 2 (work beyond occupation that contributes to advancement of the field) and Optional Criteria 3 (significant contributions to the field as an employee of a product-led digital technology company). As the applicant’s digital technology track record began in 2018, the Exceptional Promise route is no longer available to them as it is intended for applicants with 5 or less years experience. We have nevertheless assessed the applicant against the Exceptional Promise requirements. In this application the applicant has met the requirements of OC2 for their extensive track record of mentoring through the Google Scholarship Program and for the significant level of their activity and contributions to open source. Unfortunately, the applicant has not demonstrated that they meet the requirements of the mandatory criteria or OC3 at this stage. Beginning with the mandatory criteria, the applicant has provided three letters of recommendation from credible referees in the ecosystem but the content of the letters details activities which took place more than 5 years ago. Evidence for the mandatory criteria must be less than 5 years old therefore this evidence is largely inadmissible. Only the applicant’s mentoring activities fall within the last 5 years and this evidence has been counted towards OC2. The applicant also includes some evidence relating to speaking engagements but the information provided and the information on websites via the links supplied is generic and vague. We require more granular information about the size of the audience (the letter of support is not specific enough) and the impact created by the talks given. Furthermore, screenshots from LinkedIn and similar are not acceptable as evidence. Also, the applicant has worked on contract for their career to date and no detail has been provided outside of their CV for their most recent contracts. We cannot see from the evidence supplied that the applicant has been recognised as emerging or exceptional talent. The applicant has in recent times created two free products available in the public domain (product 1 and product 2) but these have very low numbers of users so far. Without more compelling and recent evidence we cannot award the mandatory criteria. Regarding OC3, we cannot see from the evidence supplied that the applicant has ever been an employee of a product-led digital technology company. As mentioned previously, the applicant lists many contract roles on their CV but they have not identified the tangible outcomes resulting from their contributions. The contributions in terms of product 1 and product 2 as mentioned are not significant at this time and also the evidence has been self-authored without independent 3rd party validation. We regret that as the applicant does not meet the requirements of all of the mandatory and optional criteria, we are unable to endorse at this time.
@Raphael @pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu and any who can help with suggestions.
In one of my mandatory criteria, I had a judge role in a Google mentorship program, but they pushed it into OC2 as mentorship