Difference between revisions of "Talk:Collective Member Review Policy"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
dave wrote: | dave wrote: | ||
| − | + | In the case of letting a person in as a full collective member or | |
| − | + | letting them go, the collective must come to consensus without blocks in | |
| − | + | order to move forward (stand asides are not enough to stop the process). | |
| − | + | ---------- | |
| − | + | This paragraph does not make sense to me. Are we talking about two | |
| − | + | different situations (letting someone into the collective, and firing | |
| − | + | a collective member)? | |
We're not setting policy on how to fire people here. We setting policy on how to let someone into the collective on a permanent basis (or not let them in). This policy wouldn't apply to a situation where an existing collective member needs to be fired. That would take a separate policy, as this one only applies to "Probationary Members of the Collective". See the section that it's in? | We're not setting policy on how to fire people here. We setting policy on how to let someone into the collective on a permanent basis (or not let them in). This policy wouldn't apply to a situation where an existing collective member needs to be fired. That would take a separate policy, as this one only applies to "Probationary Members of the Collective". See the section that it's in? | ||
Revision as of 12:16, 8 January 2005
dave wrote:
In the case of letting a person in as a full collective member or
letting them go, the collective must come to consensus without blocks in
order to move forward (stand asides are not enough to stop the process).
----------
This paragraph does not make sense to me. Are we talking about two
different situations (letting someone into the collective, and firing
a collective member)?
We're not setting policy on how to fire people here. We setting policy on how to let someone into the collective on a permanent basis (or not let them in). This policy wouldn't apply to a situation where an existing collective member needs to be fired. That would take a separate policy, as this one only applies to "Probationary Members of the Collective". See the section that it's in?
Maybe the terms should be defined a little better. Something like could go in a section above:
"Probationary Member" is a new hire into the collective, not yet given full member status.
"Full Member" is a member that has passed through the 3 (or 6) month probationary period and the collective has agreed to grant full member status.
The paragraph in question might read:
"When granting a probationary member full status, the collective must come to consensus in order to move forward. If the collective cannot come to consensus the probationary member is not granted full status and his/her employment must be terminated."