Talk:Collective Member Review Policy

• I think this best reflects the discussion we have had in HR about the new review policy. Add your thoughts/concerns!

• Policy:

The HR committee will rotate through all staff collective members on a weekly basis for an informal review. This way, each staff member will be reviewed more frequently. Those being reviewed will leave the room during the review discussion in order to protect the anonymity of their fellow staff members.

• Procedure:

HR will review collective members alphabetically by first name, starting with the beginning of the alphabet. All staff will know who next for a review and will be encouraged to provide feedback. Collective members will provide feedback to the HR committee in the form of an e-mail or a face-to-face talk. Additionally, collective members are encouraged to provide feedback whenever they think of something that needs to be addressed. In other words, there is no need to wait until someone's review is next to provide feedback.

The facilitator of the meeting will be responsible for gathering the feedback. The scribe will include the review in the meeting minutes that are sent to the HR list.

The 3-month check-in and 6-month review for new collective members will remain unchanged by this new policy. As part of the negotiation we might treat committed staff members like a collective member for the check-in and review.

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 Collective_Member_Review_Policy_Proposal#Probationary_Members_of_the_Collective 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."

---

About the Review panel and quarterly reviews: especially as the staff grows larger, it will be difficult to people a review board consisting of people who work closely with every person to be reviewed. However, 2 out of 3 may be enough, and having the point of view of someone who doesn't work closely with another might be useful (to keep things from being too personal and to ask for clarification on things like goals that may be understaood by people more closely involved). The people in the panel should probably be encouraged to claim ownership of certain parts of the process (getting questions, hounding people for responses, compiling responses, scheduling) at the onset. --Ideath 18:59, 20 Jan 2005 (PST)