Today, 02:15 AM
Thanks for the thread and idea. I'm certainly not opposed to it, some thoughts...
- This would certainly be an open system, not just for one party.
- People can already promote any candidate that receives a positive evaluation within our formal system, this wouldn't preclude promotions to just one person.
- The goal won't be to try to focus acceptance / conformity, but highlight what is seen as excellence.
A key issue would be the process used. A few thoughts on that...
- Anything done should build off of our candidate evaluation system. Maybe start there as a baseline and do point-vs-point comparisons being as objective as possible. This would have a side benefit of improving out evaluation methodology.
- At some level, there has to be a subjective judgement call, the question is, who makes that call? While the site staff doesn't have interest in being control freaks, there has to be some combination of membership involvement and final staff sign-off, which could largely be token but necessary to prevent going off-course. For membership voting, I would suggest that voting be limited to members that actively contribute to the data gathering and evaluation process.