there are a couple of things you guys missed when voting in the mod hiring process. it should be more comprehensive and should include:

-alloted time for the different steps of the process, for example, one week for nominations, three days for nominees accepting... etc
-where its being held and that a supplimentary discussion topic will be created in the lounge
-how exactly will admins come up with the final decisions? its better that we make everything transparent.



a tip when writing / amending bylaws, remember to ask and include:

-why? why do we need this?
-what? all the whats, ie what abilities do have members have?
-when? when should it take place?
-who? who should be involved?
-where? where should it take place?
-how? how exactly will it take place?

also posted this backstage and i quote:

another from backstage,


i know. hmm, i guess im not doing a good job explaining.

the idea is good and all, but a problem arises if there's an exceptionally qualified person out of the nominees. for example, let say that theres four nominees to vote from. all of them are qualified, but one is exceptionally qualified. because only one person can be voted, the exceptionally qualified person will end up with most of the votes. thats all good and all for the exceptionally qualified person, but for the other three, who in this example are still qualified, their votes will be under represented, giving a false sense that they were not wanted as staff members by the community.

what i am trying to say is that i do not agree with the principle of the system. a system should be devised to ask 'are they qualified?' rather than 'who is most qualified?'. a 'who are the "x" most qualified?' can work, where "x" is the number of positions available.


and what do you mean by 'input from the mods and the input from the community'? a set standard way of deciding among the head+admins should be outlined. im trying to leave out all ambiguities...

well that seems a lot more fair than the way voting for stuff like this usually goes! thanks

what do you mean?

i think a week for nominations and a week for voting with three days to get the data out to the public sounds fine actually

announcments, maybe?

i think that it should go souley on how the voting comes out, since its already been through two processes


i think that the number of slots for each position should be voted on and not just one to prevent this but that means we cant have a poll

i think that is a good idea as well. the mods pick the people who they feel qualified anyways and then the community votes on it, so why have the admins pick? they should be allowed to nominate people as well.

from there, you can take the top X amount of people and mod them. i know itd be different per election.

I think nominations should be submitted in 5 days. It really doesnt take that long to gather nominations seeing as how mods already know who they think should be considered for a staff positon. Voting should be take place for 3 days. However, I think the final decision for should be a mod needs more than one day to decide. Sometimes up to a week is needed to decide these types of things.

I think nominations should be placed in Announcements and discussion threads open in both the lounge (for members) and backstage for staff.

I dont think it should be based solely on how voting turns out. Yes, voting influences a large part of process but I still think head/admin input should be last of the deciding factors. They would take in account the member's history, how active that person is, etc. etc. We as staff member will be doing that too but an admin/head staff added judgement is also needed. Also, they will have the dicussion thread backstage with staff member input to also base the decision off of.

I agree with Kiera. Heads/Admins should use mod and community input, but both of those should count for a quarter of their decision each. The other half will be their own opinions.

^

i agree with that. although, how do we decied what constitutes a quarter of the decision? or is that just theoretical?

how about, for timings, a week, or until all mods have nominated (whichever happens first), week for voting, and three days for final decison

You think we should close this since the moderating hiring process has already started?

I don't know. Three days for the final decision seems a bit short to me. Choosing Head Staff was hard enough for Christina and I because we had awesome candidated to choose from.

As well, I think letting the admins and Jusun have final say is best.

no.

we can easily resolve this within a week, which seems to be the amount of time being thrown about leave nominations open for.

and mona, i sympathise... you would know, you've done it directly... how long do you think admins/heads will need? 5 days? a week?

as for jusun... he does a phenomenaljob for cb, and it is HIS site. but... and this is perfectly understandable.. he isnt on a lot. i dont know exactly how much direct input he should have. there is a reason he isnt actually an adminsitrator

5 days or a week. Either is fine. Well, a week may be too much. 5 days should be enough because 3 days is difficult with Christina living in a different timezone than Jusun and I.

Shouldn't the mod nominations be behind the scenes so members won't be angry at the mods for not nominating them? I mean, there could be a thread about who WAS nominated but not who nominated them.

And I also think the mod community should considered who CB would like to see as a Mod as well as their own opinions.

Well, that's why there's that thread. :]

Just because some of the people that were mentioned in the thread in the Lounge aren't here doesn't mean they weren't considered. Simply means those who posted don't agree.

Also, I didn't think they should be so public either; that was on Jusun's accord. Though, I have no problem letting people know my opinions, others might if one of their friends gets mad at them for not nominating them.

Also, some mods might feel pressured to vote for someone. I'm not saying the mods now will but in the future, I think the mods are doing a great job in picking nominees. But it could get ugly if someone didn't get "nominated" by a mod. That's why I think all of that should be behind the scenes, and a thread should be updated every so often with anonymous nominations...

i think they are fine as they are. people are still going to get mad when the polls are made, so why not just make it public now?

At least a mod wouldn't be publically critisized by a stupid member for not being nominated, why start drama when you can create a better solution???

well they are still going to be critisized nonetheless with p/ms saying "why didnt you nominate me?" because they will still find out their "friend" didnt nominate them because they didnt make the list.

Yes, and that's why the mods consider community input but not base everything on it. Plus, the mods are the leaders of CB I think they deserve this to be in private so they don't HAVE to put up with people being angry with them.

yea, i think it might be better if nominations were backstage, and alist of nominated people was updated for the public.

but i'm not really seeing that there's going to be quite a big problem with the nominations. i don't see people merely putting thier friends.

actually, i think that, where there have been calls of mod 'favourtism' in the past, putting nominations in the public domain will help to dispell some of these concerns

That's a good point.

I have another idea.

Only one administration would give any member a code number to nominate but a member must post as a guest, no cB account.