Regarding Penny's changes:
- Do we want people going through the process without a member guide? "They can request" makes it sound optional.
- I suggest making it a requirement. I realize the previous wording "should seek out a member guide" was equally optional sounding. Avoiding the words "must" or "will," how about saying "the first step is to..."
- Timing of member guide request. Previously, when "someone becomes serious" they can request a member guide. Now, it's when they submit an application. This means (for example) that two current "prospective members" who currently have member guides, but have not submitted an application, actually should not have member guides, until they submit an application.
- I suggest we keep it a "when you're serious" sort of thing, perhaps tightening up the wording to be more clear, perhaps by formally defining prospective member and having that status as a requirement. Member guides help the applicant through the application process; it loses much of its usefulness if it only kicks in upon submission of application.
I'm all ears about how to define when someone becomes a "prospective member." Up until now, it's been largely informal — I've been following this procedure:
- Ask the person if they'd like to be added to the short list of prospective members.
- If they do, ask all members via email if it's okay to add them to my prospective member list.
- If they seem to be inactive at some point, I've been querying them about their intentions, and possibly dropping them.
- This last step has resulted in one couple saying, "Thanks for asking, go ahead and put us on the back burner," but incented another prospective member to complete her application.
Perhaps we should slightly formalize "prospective member" by asking people to make a simple declaration, with deadline, that they intend to submit an application. As de-facto membership steward, I'm willing to write this up
—Jan Steinman 19:13, 9 November 2008 (PST)
Share your opinion
blog comments powered by Disqus