DISCUSS: Application and Recruitment of new Buddies

Archives SUMO/Buddies
#1

This is the thread to discuss where and how new Buddies are recruited.

[size=17]PROPOSAL:[/size]

(a) Applications Thread
A new thread should be created in SUMO: Buddies category of Discourse.

Thread Title:

Do you want to become a Buddy? Join us!


**Original Post content:** >A **Buddy**, in SUMO jargon, is a contributor who wants to help new contributors (**NewbiesTrainees**) familiarize themselves with what SUMO does and how. Buddies' responsibility is to take NewbiesTrainees by the hand, show them around SUMO locations, and train them in what is the proper way of doing things.

To get a better idea of what a Buddy does please read: Help new contributors - SUMO Buddy Program

For one to apply for a Buddy membership, one has to be an experienced, high quality contributor of SUMO.

If you are interested in joining the Buddy Program please post a reply to this thread and your application will be considered shortly. You will be notified for the success or not of your application after your application has been considered.




(b) Applications Processing

Once a new applicant responds to the “Applications” thread, the current Buddies will study the applicant’s contributions and participation on SUMO and will decide whether the application should be accepted or not. All applications before the day of the Buddies meeting will be included in the meeting agenda for voting by the meeting participants. A simple majority of those present (50% + 1 vote) is considered as an approval of the application. If a majority is not achieved, the application is rejected. A rejected applicant can re-apply for Buddy membership again at least one month after the application rejection.

Admins have the right to veto an Application Approval i.e. An Admin can stop an application from being approved even if the majority of the participants has voted for the application.

Admins do not have the right to veto an Application Rejection i.e. An Admin cannot approve an application if the majority of the participants has rejected it.

The benefits of the above suggestion are:

  • The program does not stall in case of Admins overloading.
  • The new Buddies will have the approval (and cooperation) of the majority of current buddies.
  • If SUMO Management considers an applicant as inappropriate they can block his/her application.
  • The current Buddies can help with the approval of new Buddies based on their own experience. The approval of an application will be a result of collective brainstorming.
3 Likes
#2

Great stuff.

One note: since the article you refer to mentions “Trainees” and not “Newbies”, shall we stick that term “Trainees” for consistency?

(also, I spend too much time in the gamer universe, and “newbie” there is not always used positively, sadly :/)

#3

Hi Vesper! :smile:

Absolutely agree! I don’t really like the word “Newbie” myself and avoid using it as much as possible. (I prefer “New Contributor”). I “inherited” the word from past eras, but I will gladly change it! :slight_smile:

#4

CAKCy,
Please don’t mind.
Why we are rejecting an application?

One more thing, its about volunteering, if we come up with more rules then Its difficult to get a volunteer.

Sorry, if anything wrong.

2 Likes
#5

Jay my friend,

I don’t mind, I never mind and I would be stupid to mind!!! So please argue as much as you like! You are helping us all in finding what’s the best.

We may need to reject an application (or actually NOT approve it) as a group (or as a meeting voting) because the applicant is not experienced enough to be a Buddy. For instance a new contributor who has been with SuMo for 2 days, would be rejected if he applied for Buddy position.

Regarding your thought about rules and volunteering. We have discussed about this once again in the past and we have slightly different positions on this:

You (and many others) - please correct me if I’m wrong - consider that we will achieve results with more contributors. And you are afraid (reasonably so) that if we put more rules down then we will scare contributors away.

I, on the other hand, consider that we will achieve results with better contributors. And I say that we shouldn’t be afraid to put rules down and train our contributors, because those who can’t take the rules or the training are not willing to contribute anyway.

In other words you root for Militia (thousands of untrained, poorly equipped infantrymen). I root for Marines (a few well trained, well equipped elite contributors).

The best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. But we have all seen what happened with AoA (which is my source of conclusions). No rules, no training have let to anarchy and very bad results. I don’t think we want this. :smile:

Thank you SO MUCH for responding and helping with the brainstorming! :smile:

#6

We may need to reject an application (or actually NOT approve it) as a
group (or as a meeting voting) because the applicant is not experienced
enough to be a Buddy. For instance a new contributor who has been with
SuMo for 2 days, would be rejected if he applied for Buddy position.

He/She must finish the milestones to be a BUDDY right?

I accept your points as a long time contributor, if I’m a newbie surely i run away.

1 Like
#7

I don’t know! :open_mouth: Have we decided what are the criteria for one to become a Buddy? Is somebody who have completed the milestones capable of performing Buddy work? Is an old contributor with high quality performance not capable of being a Buddy because he/she hasn’t completed the milestones? All these are things that need to be discussed. (Because I don’t want to be the one starting new threads all the time :stuck_out_tongue: (some are already bored with me), do you care to start a new thread with your thoughts on what should the criteria be for a new Buddy?)

#8

I think that must

#9

I agree that at first we need quality, which will in turn lead to quantity.
Great work inspires, bad work scares away.
If we set a few simple, logical standards for Buddies to follow and we follow them ourselves, the community will be a better place and will attract more interested people.

#10

ORGANIZATIONAL NOTE: @iamjayakumars - would you be OK with being the steward for this thread? I hope you will be :slight_smile:

#11

Ya sure @vesper, that’s my pleaseure

#12

At this stage, I assume we can all agree that CAKCy’s original post has been discussed and we can move on with using his idea, yes/no?

1 Like
#13

+1 from my side!

#14

2 votes for / X abstaining :slight_smile:

#15