Screening Criteria (Round 1)
In first round screen, each application will be reviewed by at least 2 people. Reviewers (Selection Committee and volunteers) will rate applications on a scale of 1 - 5 for each of three questions outlined below, where
- 5 = Very strong applicant
- 4 = Strong applicant
- 3 = Average applicant
- 2 = Below average (should not be considered for TF membership)
- 1 = Well-below threshold (should not be considered for TF or other role in strategy process)
In determining what overall rating to give an applicant, reviewers should evaluate the following:
A. How compelling was her/his statement of interest and how aligned was it with the purpose of the strategy process?
- Did the applicant express concern for the broader mission/vision of Wikimedia?
- Did the applicant express concern for the overall community and Foundation beyond her/his pet projects within Wikimedia?
B. To what extent does the applicant have relevant skills and experience?
- Was the applicant able to provide concrete examples of her/his related skills and experience in strategic planning, research, data analysis?
- Does the applicant have experience working or leading a team, particularly in a volunteer context?
- Has the applicant demonstrated commitment to the issues to be addressed in the strategic planning process through her/his academic, professional or volunteer work?
- If applicable, what was the quality of the work s/he linked to in the application?
C. Will the applicant contribute an under-represented perspective to the strategic planning process?
- Does the applicant have a unique/diverse background in terms of languages spoken, country of residence, gender, other?
In addition to the rating, reviewers will identify which TFs the applicant would have the most to contribute to as either a TF member, "expert on call," or in another role.
The two reviewers scores will be averaged; applicants that get an overall score of > 3.5 will be considered in Round 2 of the selection process (note: this threshold may be raised or lowered based on the number of applicants that make this cut-off)
Just a thought: I wonder if there shouldn't be a "wild card" variable... for "there's something about this one that doesn't fit these categories but is worth paying attention to..." -- Philippe 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Should A, B, and C be rated separately so as to have clear line of sight to why an applicant got a specific score (low on C, high on A)? This would also allow a cleaner view if we need to dip lower than our cutoff or set the bar higher which would be the next applicant. Serita 23:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. I like that idea a lot. -- Philippe 17:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Missing from these criteria is the ability to commit ~10 hours per week to the task force which was just about the ONLY criteria that preceded this document. I feel it should be added so that people are clear on the time required. --Bodnotbod 13:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I like this too ...but when is the screening going to be carried out is it already over ? सरोज कुमार ढकाल 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Screening Criteria (Round 2)
For Round 2 of the selection process, reviewers (Steering Committee members and volunteers) will be assigned to a task force (or task forces). Each task force will have at least two reviewers assigned to it.
Reviewers will consider all of the applicants who received a sufficiently high score and who were identified as potential candidates for this task force during the Round 1 review process. From this group, they will be responsible for recommending a pool of 10-15 participants for the task force. Reviewers should complete a forced ranking of applicants to provide a sense of priority for engagement (since some applicants may be appropriate for more than one task force).
In recommending the top candidates for a task force, reviewers should consider:
- Fit between the applicants' expressed interest and relevant skills/experience with the task force's topic
- Overall mix among those being recommended for the task force in terms of:
- Time available to the process (i.e. each task force should have some members who are willing to devote a significant amount of time to the effort)
- Diversity of perspectives (i.e. gender, country of residence, experience within wikipedia)
- Potential working dynamic (i.e. common language)
Reviewers will submit their recommendations to the strategic planning project manager and facilitator who will make final decisions on task force assignments for applicants who were recommended for more than one task force and to promote better balance of participation across task forces.