Policy for adding people to PR after the recent mass addition

[Hipmonlee]

Is everyone happy with a thread being made by any PR member (in the private section), then it being left open for a week for objections, and at the end, unless there is significant objection they are given access.

I am unsure exactly how the objection count worked in the previous nominations thread worked, but I would assume that same process could easily be applied to individual nominations.

It seems silly that when a person comes a long who is obviously willing and capable of contributing we dont have any method of determining whether they should be added or not.

Also, just so it is easy enough to get rid of people should this process turn up false positives, that any infracted post in PR should have them lose their access.

Have a nice day.

 

[undisputed]

I dont have inside access, but I agree that this should be added. I always wanted to participate in PR, and I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to be added. Having a system to add intelligent users would be greatly beneficial imo.

 

[Megan_Fox]

I was wondering about this myself, I like the system you offered, seems good to me.

 

[Snorlaxe]

megan and undisputed have summed up my thoughts; if there are any potential PR contributors out there, we should be trying to quickly get them access. this sounds like a great idea to me.

 

[locopoke]

The same system that was used to mass nominate members recently can still be used. Similar to badge nominations, any PR member can make a nomination thread for a user and if there are 7 objections then that user is denied access. If there aren't 7 rejections after x amount of time he/she gets added.

 

[twash]

I agree with nominations being posted and after a week or so a decision being made. I'm not keen on the idea of a set objection count so much as "just use common sense", because the reason for objections could well vary in severity and value. Most of the time, it should be pretty obvious as to whether the person can be taken seriously or not. If it's debatable, I think they should probably be given the chance to express their views.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Yeah that was more or less my concern as well, I am hoping someone will go into greater detail exactly what was the decision in terms of how that was decided previously. Though that is perhaps unlikely to happen now.

I am pretty sure an exact count was not the basis for the previous set of decisions, as the number for the count was not specified beforehand. If it was decided based on responses, then it is essentially the same as just deciding using common sense.

Have a nice day.