Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Barbelith Applications

Page: (1)2 3 4 5 6... 12

11:02 / 15.11.05

The current application system is not going very well (or to be more precise, not going very quickly, which amounts to a similar thing) and I thought I would see what people thought we should do about it. Essentially, the problem is that people who check also have other things to do, which means that if we are all busy at the same time the checking takes a lot longer, as has been mentioned by Nina and others in the other thread.

So a couple of questions; Is anyone else willing to help out, particularly with the secondary checking of applicants? If so I would be happy to write a wee guide to the whole interface (details on joining the yahoo group here) which should make things more clear.

Secondly, does anyone have any ideas on how better to check people who want to apply to the board? In the long run a better solution would be good -one of the reasons I'm starting this topic is that it's soon going to be EXCITING RACE AGAINST TIME time at work for me, and I won't have the same time to devote to the apps as I do now; it would be useful if the whole process were less dependent on individual people having long evenings / lots of access to a computer.

11:46 / 15.11.05

If it's needed I don't mind helping out, though I have only a hazy idea of what the procedure is. Most of my time online is at work, but I'm rarely busy, so I should be able to help.

12:26 / 15.11.05

I suspect NaNoWriMo has been eating up the free time of several of the checkers lately.

What do people think of streamlining the process so that only one person checks each applicant? It seems to me that should cut the wait time down quite a bit and probably only reduce the security slightly.

13:02 / 15.11.05

The problem with distributed systems that have people checking in and doing bits when they feel like it is that there's a critical mass of members required, which I feel we may be below.

I'd be quite happy with the one check myself; I only put two in because that was what the old system did, and one check would speed things up hugely. I suppose it depends on whether people believe that everyone in the future who joins can be trusted to properly check origins.

Oh, and can I repeat that people who want to join really need to both apply to join through the group AND PM me the email address they are trying to join with. Because otherwise anyone could join with a random address and say "yeah, I'm Haus, honest I am".

17:39 / 15.11.05

I thought of one check, but since most of the current apps have been primary checked by me I didn't want to say it for fear of sounding like some kind of power-hungry psychopath. Personally, I'd be happy with it -and if we were worried about the extent of the checking, would it be possible to send the checking emails from the barbelith-apply address? That way there would at least be an easily checkable record of correspondence.

Also, we currently have about 35 apps with only one check right now; how would people feel about my just sending those on now, even if we keep the primary / secondary check system in place after that? I'm starting to get emails from people asking about the status of their app and I feel like one of the bad guys from a Kafka novel.

Phox, I will do my best to write a wee guide to checking before the weekend, and will email the group when it's on the site.

ONLY NICE THINGS

07:18 / 16.11.05

My time is a bit limtied, but I'd like to help. Will check the login stuff.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:04 / 16.11.05

Also, do we still have a fast track for people who are already vetted and trusted by existing members?

10:27 / 16.11.05

Well, I wasn't sure whether a recommendation meant an automatic pass, so I've been checking those people as usual. What used to happen?

15:28 / 16.11.05

Well, I know I've just sent Tom an email with a person's name & email address in it in the past, asking if he'd let 'em in and he did.

15:35 / 16.11.05

Yeah, I've been passing people if an established member vouches for them via PM.

FWIW, since the existing checkers are all mods or long-standing members, I for one would be happy streamlining the procedure to one check - either to get rid of the backlog or as general policy. Borderline or problem cases could still be referred to others as and when judgement dictated. I mean, so far, has there been any disagreement?

Sorry that I've been a bit slack on applicant checking of late; I've just been busy. Will try to get back up to pace when I get the chance.

12:42 / 17.11.05

I still keep people to the checking process that I ask of the rest of you, even if I circumvent the situation in rare circumstances. I try to always direct people to the official process unless there's a really good reason why not (ie. they've lost their previous e-mail or something), and even then I try and avoid making a habit of letting people in out of hand, as I don't want to start a flood.

13:01 / 17.11.05

Unless there's objections I think reducing the process to one check would really help. If someone cunningly slips through the net and starts trolling, ban 'em.

15:21 / 17.11.05

I'm sorry - I did sign up to the group, with the best of intentions, but then became too busy to do anything.

20:00 / 17.11.05

I've written a wee guide to the whole apps process and it's on the group page now. It reads a bit like it was written by a deranged person, because I had about 5 minutes left in my lunch hour when I started it.

Smoothly, I don't think there's been much real disagreement -think it would be useful to be able to flag people to the group if you think a second check is needed. Does anyone have any objections to a one-check system?

15:13 / 18.11.05

Right, I am all signed up and will try to do some checking this weekend. If my brane gets confused is there a faq, or am I best off pm-ing/e-mailing some more experienced checkers?

16:16 / 18.11.05

dude, just ask.
i can tell you all you need to know.

23:13 / 12.12.05

So are we agreed about streamlining this process to one check?
I'm just conscious that there might be valid objections to the departure from a distributed approach.

If everyone is basically okay about it, could I suggest the checker flags anyone they have any doubt about for a second opinion? Perhaps a ? in the 2ary checker box?

Sound reasonable?

Unless anyone objects, I'll clear the remaining applicants who passed the first check and send the addresses to Tom. Then, unless someone beats me to it, forward some more applications to the database. We've got a bit of a backlog. Anyone up for a bit of a blitz before Christmas?

ONLY NICE THINGS

07:45 / 13.12.05

I'm starting holidays next week - will try to have a hack. On the one-check thing - is the only thing we're aiming for proof of relation between applicant x and identity x? If so, maybe we could add a "proof of", like "work email checks out" or "made change to blog on request" - something to that effect?

08:24 / 13.12.05

Yup, that sounds good to me. So, a brief note on the terms of the pass (or fail) where the 1ary checker would normally write ‘pass’, (a ? in the 2ary Checker slot for a second opinion), and ‘pass’ (or ‘fail’) where the 2ary checker would normally write it. Last column for final pass/fail/sent status as usual.

Would that work? Checkers can sort for open first-check slots in the usual way, on ?s for any referrals, and for passes in the last column for sending.

08:48 / 13.12.05

Sorry, I've been really lax on this, but I'm off for the next two weeks, so will attempt to help out as best I can.

10:18 / 15.12.05

Happy to help. Please sign me up and PM me relevant details. Cheers!

12:05 / 15.12.05

Hurrah. PM fridge your email address, Jub.

19:40 / 07.01.06

With whom may I check on the status of a friend's app, or how should she go about checking on it herself?

15:41 / 08.01.06

You can PM me the name, DH, and I'll have a look. I suspect ze might be stuck in the tail-back though. I'm afraid the process has ground to a near holt in the last few weeks owing to people being busy or unavailable.

I do wonder whether we need to rethink this again. Whether we need more checkers, or different checks, or if we've decided that we're effectively closed again.

I'm up for doing what I can to kick start the existing process again, although I wouldn't mind some help getting the thing moving again. If I tranfered all the new applications to the group, would someone else start adding them to the database - or divvy them up with me to do the same?

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:06 / 08.01.06

Frustratingly, I've lost my yahoo account login. I think I have it written down in the office, so I should be back up and running tomorrow, byut if not I'll register a new account. Sorry to let everyone down - I was hoping to hack into this over the hols.

05:43 / 11.01.06

Thanks toksik & Smoothly. I sent over some info by PM, let me know if you need anything else.

21:34 / 06.02.06

So then er anyone fancy giving me a little online guide of the process? Fridge's email was fantabulous of course but.... I think I may have gone a bit wrong, possibly? Nothing to worry about of course but having just forwarded one, sole application e-mail as a test I see that it has been returned to the account via one of those address in error mailer daemon things? Er anyone?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

22:06 / 06.02.06

I'd expect a few more applications than usual in the near future- we're in The Times T2 today (page 2, incidentally)- one of their featured websites.

At www.barbelith.com you can exect "an online space where the standard of conversation, discussion and debate is higher than anywhere else online". Apparently. Creativity and curiosity are the keys on this experimental site: you can post questions or read answers on a variety of topics.

Mon Oncle Ignatius

22:15 / 06.02.06

First the Grauniad, now The Times... where next, I wonder?

22:20 / 06.02.06

There seems to be a little backlog already.

22:21 / 06.02.06

God, rotten timing to be quoting that bit about how we have the greatest standards of anything anywhere on the net ever.

22:22 / 06.02.06

Did it not mention anything about the fennecs then?

Mon Oncle Ignatius

22:32 / 06.02.06

Maybe the Barbarians would be more to The Times' liking. Or the Vikings, what with it being the Thunderer.

[I feel a threadrot creeping at my bones here]

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

22:38 / 06.02.06

(When I say "today", btw, I obviously mean tomorrow- the 7th).

22:39 / 06.02.06

fantastic!
i was really hoping to have more stuff to do, now that i have less time to do stuff in.
ah well.
new blood makes the grey grow.

Page: (1)2 3 4 5 6... 12