Hiring Process Discussion Options

[*incoherent*]

^ Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The most obivious issue for discussion would be hiring. So why not make a seperate thread so we can all start brain storming ideas. We can also make seperate threads for other things we would like to discuss.

alright, so kiera makes a good point as quoted above. hiring is what everyone disagrees on. lets discuss what we think here.

[sadolakced acid]

hiring process, people.

make another thread for closing topics. although i think just a provision to create a rule will do in the by-laws.

hiring process.

why no emulate the original constitution's idea?

everyone gets to vote for delegates, who in turn have a 4 days to argue about the new mods (2 days public, then 2 days of private deliberations), then they vote on each individual applicant.

applicants recieving a 2/3 positive votes make it to the shortlist, which is made public.

the shortlist is then sent to a group of mods, who have 2 days to see if there's a reason each of the applicants on the short list cannot be a mod.

they then vote, and anyone with a majority in favor becomes a new mod.


something like that.

[Heathasm]

i think that endorsments are a good idea. some people will endorse their friends for the soul reason of being friends with the person, but it is easy to detect. . . i just think that we should encourage, when asking for applications, the fact that when getting an endorsment it would be alot more helpful to their chances to get an endorsment from someone that genuinely thinks they should get the position according to their posts on CB.

i also think that mod selection should be left up to mods and members 45/45 according to lists, not polls (i just dont like the idea of polls) and left up for a week as well as being advertised to ALL of the section on CB, so that it will be more likely for all the groups on cb to get involved