[wp-forums] Doing it for free. - the people

[Petit]

Hear, hear!!

Wit is charming indeed.
Would that involve some fluency in strange languages, as English or 
American?
/Petit

TechGnome wrote:

> Great, now none of us will make the cut. None of us have any wits 
> about us.
>
> Aaaanyways.... It can and probably should be subjective. Having people 
> apply? Eh, I'm not too keen on that.... you'll get all kinds of people 
> applying.  The bottom line should be, would YOU trust this person with 
> the keys of your kingdom? There are a few people I would trust with 
> this info (nearly all of whom are on this list), and mostly it's 
> because I've dealt with them before, they have a long standing in the 
> community, and their help has been top notch.
>
> It should be the other way around... by invite. The process would work 
> like this:
> 1) Person is nominated to be an installer
> 1a) Person is asked if they want to be one
> 2) Committee reviews the nomination (should be a black box process)
> 3) Committee approves or disapproves the nomination
> 4) Person is notified of outcome
>
> I've seen this process work successfully before. Steps 1 & 4 
> would/could be made public, 1a is done as a private email to the 
> nominee, but steps 2 & 3 is done out of the public. I know this kinda 
> goes against Podz's concept of being transparent, but we are talking 
> about the integrity and security of other people's blogs, they deserve 
> the right to know that the installers have been fully vetted and can 
> be trusted.
>
> -tg
>
> Handy wrote:
>
>> Great questions.  As a hopeful volunteer, I suppose I shouldn't 
>> poison the
>> well too much..
>>
>> Hopefully y'all will definitely look at some *fuzzy* amount/quality of
>> involvement in WP to avoid folks signing up for a forums account and
>> volunteering the next day.   However, I've only been around for half 
>> a year,
>> so to many I'm still a Johnny-come-lately.  Maybe name a small 
>> "council" or
>> team of reviewers and have hopefuls actually apply?  A simple online 
>> form
>> would likely suffice as a place to list out skills and resume'ish type
>> information.  Just a thought.
>> Hmm...  Glad I'm not you!
>>
>> I say go for measurable attributes:  Sex appeal and charm.  ;-)  Oh - 
>> and
>> wit.  Can't forget wit.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/06, Podz <podz at tamba2.org.uk> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> At some point the issue of who will actually be doing this arises.
>>> Potentially it is contentious but hopefully we can agree something that
>>> is fair.
>>>
>>> At the last #meetup in response to someone suggesting that security of
>>> information was a potential problem, Matt stated "we already have
>>> concepts of trust with each other based on how long someone has been
>>> around, how they contribute, etc " which I think is an excellent view.
>>>
>>> The point I think we also need to come from is not who do we let join,
>>> but what is the marker for joining? How do we do this to include people
>>> rather than exclude people? This making sense?
>>>
>>> I do not think it should just be moderators only, as has been said
>>> before and I agree with there are some excellent people in the forum 
>>> who
>>> may wish to take on the extra work too.
>>> Excellent is a fuzzy word though.
>>>
>>> Given this is purely for the benefit of people coming to WordPress and
>>> that we must be seen to be very competent (I imagine that when this
>>> happens it will be scrutinised) how do we choose who can help inside
>>> this? How many should there be?
>>>
>>> P.
>>
>