Tell the CDT What To Do

Bump.

 

This isn't a bad idea. But right now there's probably no difference between the CDT and TCT other than it's membership. There really shouldn't be 2 teams, but that's what happened.

How else would people get in? You can't let people who aren't a part of the team decide who is on the team. If you're suggesting a meritocratic system, that is something currently under consideration in certain cases; meaning that even if members do not have a strong community presence, but have certain skills that are needed on the team they would be allowed in with a certain approval rating.

Yeah I just don't see this happening. It'll turn into a popularity contest with grudges holding certain people back unfairly. I do, however, want to extend voting on certain CDT issues to the public.

Also, leaders having not much power I believe was sort of the decision of the leaders. What I mean by that is, leaders have not taken full advantage of their positions. Since I have been elected I am trying to use my power to it's best ability to try and actually change things. Something I am considering is making it so that if both leaders agree on something, it happens. Currently, many applicants and ideas have been shot down even when both leaders believe in them.

What does everyone think of this? It would end a lot of the bureaucratic issues.


Also, the required % of being accepted to the CDT is 60% yes vote on an applicant. Do people think this is too high or fine? I am pushing for a simple majority to be accepted as a CDT member, and also in specific cases if members reach a lower yes vote % (say 30%) they will have limited access to the CDT but still be able to help out and be a part of the team, just not a full-fledged member.

 

As I've told you on Skype: get rid of dead weight. Just like the new admin rotation, base it on activity not promised activity. You have way too many people on your team and as a result it's very inefficient. Cut it down, raise the % to get in to 75% and build a team that actually works together. Smaller groups usually get more shit done.

 

Already gave my note on "CDT helpers" but let me do it publicly.

Lol no that's a terrible idea. If people don't improve on what held them back from their last application to the CDT they don't deserve to get in. As I stated also I think we should remove the waiting period between applications and encourage people who show interest to apply and work on what they could do better.

As for giving the two leaders more power over specific stuff. People are already complaining that this is a popularity contest. Letting 2 people decide vs letting 14 people (or whatever) decide is a much worse option.

 

I'd like to see what non-CDT members think of this idea. Removal of the waiting period is also on the table.

In regards to the leaders thing, if that's the case then there is literally no point in having leaders. Authority usually inherently comes with added privileges. If they were elected to lead the team, then that means the 14 people trusted them to make the right decision.

 

To be honest, this is the issue I kept hitting when I tried to lead the CDT. Anything I did would just be me being a "dictator" instead of them realizing that in certain situations that's what a leader needs to be, especially when appointed to make dramatic changes like I was. It was just intolerable to deal with members like @Tyler and @Sonia who really should not be in any sort of leadership position.

 

How does it work now?

 

Then there should also be an option to not have a CDT leader, CDT members are forced into choosing someone currently.

 

Full removal of the waiting period doesn't seem like a good idea. Could reduce it though.

Or you could look at the other side of things and increase it. Make it a small, dedicated and efficient team that is difficult to get into. That's how it should be.

 

I'm not in any sort of leadership position. That's what Ham and Ex do.

Also @Hamouze whats the point of voting on polls if when the leaders feel it they should have power over the rest of the team to decide to let them in. If that's the case remove the polls all together?

Also you should re-check applications if we're wanting/thinking about a meritocratic system.

 

I still think it'd be good to have the community choose who they want as leader. You can argue that it will be a popularity contest, but when it comes to the community development team, don't you want people in there that are truly popular with the community?

 

They're not in a leadership position, they're members. I think the problem is there's no official standards as to what the leader is allowed to do, so everyone feels scared if the leader does something they disagree with, even though they elected the leader to lead..

Could you be a bit more specific? How does what work?

lol. You want a team with no leader or direction? What's the point in having a team then, people can just do everything on their own in that case.

There is currently a newly set 2 month waiting period. It was voted on and many options were given. I think 2 months is fine, but if people want it changed then I'll respond to what the community wants.

Because polls don't necessarily have 2 options, and if the whole team can't come to an agreement then the leaders need to step in and lead. Also, generally the leaders decisions coincide with what the team wants, this would just be in special cases.

 

The voting on applications

 

The only problem with that is that there are a lot of things that the CDT works on that the community is not fully aware of (working on stickies, fixing things around the site, SEO, miscellaneous things that aren't events) and even events that are run by several members but posted by 1 member. The community doesn't exactly know who is actually doing things, so it's possible that their opinions can be skewed easily and people who don't actually deserve the position/aren't suited for the position get it.

 

Applications are put up for 1 week. Poll with yes or no. Need 60% yes by the end of the week for being added as a member of the team.

 

This.

 

You are honestly an idiot

 

Make the monthly check ins public.

Problem solved

 

That's a good idea. So everyone knows who has done what. Not like that should be private.

 

And it's information that's already completed so it wouldn't be leaking.