CHEST is a funding that directly emerges from efforts of the broad TransforMap community and therefore I see no mismatch between “project specific” and “transformap specific”. It also underwent, to the extent of my knowledge (I was less involved in TransforMap then) a legitimate work and decision making process.
SSEDAS is a service delivery to a consortium of organisations related to solidarity economy. It was not, to the extent of my knowledge legitimately agreed and openly discussed in the TransforMap community. I basically started my active contributions to TransforMap when this issue emerged, so got very involved in the whole story.
Now, while I understand your point that you find a mix of specific SSEDAS stories and TransforMap ones, I would still argue that:
the process is transparent to this discourse public, just that it might not be yet enough to address the and efforts are being made to make it clearer to everyone (e. g. regular communication, an introduction to the process, etc.)
at the moment I see as problematic a separation of the “project-specific” stories and the TransforMap stories. For me, the point is that projects and fundings should contribute, to the extent possible, to support the developments that the TransforMap community finds as prioritary. Separating it, would mean that it we will have a team focused on delivering products to partners, parallel non-matching developments, etc. For example, I like to see SSEDAS as a real-world testbed TransforMap technologies
Everyone is invited to formulate new stories (on the hackpad) and to join the team (on Tuesday, or the next sprint planning meeting). Those who are on taiga (and everyone can be, just ping me) can also vote stories up or down, helping to settle a list of priorities on which the scrum team (which should respond to the community needs, not singular projects) will work on.
If, in the future, more people are engaged, we can have a second team and get e.g. SSEDAS split apart, because it has in fact a few deliverables which are hard to make matching with TransforMap’s own vision. But at least for the next iteration I don’t see a sense in separating this.