Hiring process reform Options

[radhikaeatsraman]

Many people have been complaining about the politics of the hiring process and how it needs to be changed. Mike (dispn0ygonekrazy) and I were talking in the cB chat about the state of this site and how it could change if applications were (almost) anonymous.

The process could work the same as CreateSecret, where a separate anonymous e-mail address receives the applications. Afterwards, a separate cB account starts a thread with all the applications. Only the administrators & mentors would have access to who the applicants are.

Applicants could state their usernames, but they would not be shown to the community. Rather, numbers would be given to each applicant. If applying for Design Staff, samples of work would be included in the application along with coding, if necessary.

People Staff candidates would also be judged based on their application, not post count or connections to current moderators. Again, only the administrators & mentors would have access to the applicant's identities, and numbers would be used in the POSTED applications. Administrators & mentors would have access to their usernames & post counts.

Interview questions/answers would be given in the application itself, along with the required paragraph.

This anonymous applicant process would be a much better alternative to our current one, which encourages dirty politics and petty fights between people. Applicants should be judged not by their username, but by their merit.

edit: Elimination of the "cB applications discussion thread" in The Lounge would also ensure a much less politically-charged process.

[*digitalfragrance*]

I think it is very important to know who the person is that is applying. Imagine if someone that was bent on ruining cB but a goody-two shoes application up = CHAOS!

[Simba]

I think it is very important to know who the person is that is applying. Imagine if someone that was bent on ruining cB but a goody-two shoes application up = CHAOS!

Right.

There's much more to be taken into consideration than the applications. And it's not too hard to make a good, persuasive application; you don't even have to be telling the truth.

If you (general) can't even handle the "drama" or what not of applying for staff, maybe you should reconsider the pressure and stress of actually being on staff.

Post count/PPD should definitely be considered when choosing staff members. If you have only ten and a half posts here, you probably shouldn't be applying. PPD, or activity, rather, is also important. You probably shouldn't be applying if you just got back from a ten month hiatus. Other than that though, post count and PPD are very minute factors in the hiring process. Someone with 10,000 posts isn't going to have a better chance of getting hired than someone with only 1,000 posts (when only looking at post counts).


And I would have written more, but Toya just posted, so I'll just let you use your time reading that. =P

[*shotgunFUNERAL*]

If you (general) can't even handle the "drama" or what not of applying for staff, maybe you should reconsider the pressure and stress of actually being on staff.

if i remember correctly, they just asked you to be on staff. don't speak on things you haven't been through.

on topic, admins/mentors/whoever else have the final say of who's hired, so there's not point of doing it anonymously if they know who you are especially if they say who is in and who is out.

[*alovesopure*]

if i remember correctly, they just asked you to be on staff. don't speak on things you haven't been through.

That is correct, but at the same time, Archie is right.

on topic, admins/mentors/whoever else have the final say of who's hired, so there's not point of doing it anonymously if they know who you are especially if they say who is in and who is out.

But yeah, I'd have to agree with this. And like Toya said, it wouldn't stay completely anonymous.
Plus it seems pretty... complicated. haha