A Message from the Board of Directors

[Nadezhda al'Lanahrin]

Will the Hall still “report” to the Keeper?

 

[Keisha al'Benn]

Sounds like a good plan.

 

[Alyria Ess]

Sorry you guys please don't hate me, I wish I could just be happy/trust like you say but this is still bothering me.

If the need for a split decision was known this summer, why wasn't it created then?

 

[Lyara Tieran]

I think this is a great idea, and I think using the existing applicants is excellent.

And if I'm late to the party.....

sorry not sorry. :shrug

 

[Alexstrasz Ruskein]

We have to start trusting our leadership eventually.

We don't HAVE to do anything. No one has to trust anyone, especially anyone who has broken their trust. IF we are going to start trusting our leadership eventually, our leadership has to start earning/repairing that trust. Which doesn't happen overnight.

The applicants we have took the plunge and stepped up to volunteer without having a single inkling that the demand of this position may change.

My feelings on this are:

I think the big thing here is that there are probably people who have the time and capacity to do a great job as COO but didn't want to deal with the membership and public figure part of things that the new CMO will need to deal with but the COO won't. *points to the threads in the Executive Meeting Discussion forum*

If anyone refrained because they thought they would be a poor/mediocre fit for half the job (but a great fit for the other half), they were doing the RIGHT thing, the responsible thing, to not drag the site through more of what it's been dealing with for months.

We have so many talented individuals here who want to give back and contribute, and that is fantastic! In the end however, we recognize that no one stays in these types of positions forever (except perhaps for Toral... ) so this will come up again in the future.

even if we might get a couple more by reopening, it didn't offset the downsides of timing etc and trying to get someone up and going in these positions as quickly as possible.

It seems like you think many or all of the people disappointed in this decision are so because they would have applied if it was reopened. I'm sure some are, but I know at least some of us are bothered by the impression that leadership is more concerned with doing things fast than doing things right.

 

[Nadezhda al'Lanahrin]

Doing things quickly can also be right as well, especially in this instance where the position hasn’t been filled for months and the selection process has been going on for over a month too.

 

[Alyria Ess]

Oh, yeah I guess I should say I would NOT have applied for either had they been posted appropriately.

I'm not poking at this because I have a chip on my shoulder.

 

[Xander Silverstar]

We don't HAVE to do anything. No one has to trust anyone

These exactly my sentiments (word for word)

I know at least some of us are bothered by the impression that leadership is more concerned with doing things fast than doing things right.

This really hits it on the head, it bothers me that expediency has repeatedly been chosen over doing things correctly.

I would like to add that some people might see (due the history of the books and the site) - and may have been hesitant to apply for it, where they might have been less hesitant about this position.

 

[Tree]

nametobedecided (can we keep this name? )

Seconded.

 

[Melisande Arneil]

Will the Hall still “report” to the Keeper?

The CMO will be the officer in charge of the Hall.

 

[Vivianna L'antreau]

Alex is absolutely correct - no one *has* to trust, no one *has* to agree.

All I can tell y'all is that the board (Alora, Caerwyn, Calen, Melisande, and myself) discussed all angles and differing opinions and this is the path we as a team have chosen to go with. We feel that the applicants we have will be able to fill both the Keeper/COO and nametobedecided/CMO positions effectively. All of us love this Community and want to do right by it!

Another question I think was about where the Hall will now fall on the org chart, and yep it will side step over as staff members under the CMO.

Final one outstanding I believe is Alyria's, but unfortunately that isn't one that I have the perspective to be able to answer I can speculate, but I don't want to give incorrect information.

 

[Melisande Arneil]

Sorry you guys please don't hate me, I wish I could just be happy/trust like you say but this is still bothering me.

If the need for a split decision was known this summer, why wasn't it created then?

Sorry Alyria, I had to step away from the keyboard cuz work.

We didn't create this position in the summer because the board wasn't at full strength at that time. We also wanted time to think about the proposal, because it is a shift from what we've always done. And life got busy for most of us, so it sat. In the end, we decided that we wanted our new board members to have a say in the possible creation of this position, so we advertised/selected our new members so we could have a full board, then made the decision. Yes, we'd already advertised Keeper, and like I said in a previous post, that was most likely an error, so we need to work with what we have and learn for the future.

 

[Ajailyn Morrivinna]

Oh, yeah I guess I should say I would NOT have applied for either had they been posted appropriately.

I'm not poking at this because I have a chip on my shoulder.

Same. Would not be applying.

I'm holding to the fact it looks very unprofessional, and if we are trying to do better, we'll let's to better please. As Alyria Sedai has said, we still can.

 

[Alyria Ess]

How long have we been without a full board?

 

[Satara al'Caelahn]

Another question I think was about where the Hall will now fall on the org chart, and yep it will side step over as staff members under the CMO.

Has anyone considered having the Hall report to one or the other depending on what's going before the Hall? Divide the Hall's duties and purpose between the two positions?

Does that even make sense?

ANYWAY! I fully support this decision and (somewhat) trust that the board is making the right choice. And to be fair, I don't think either option is completely optimal. Put off having a Keeper on the off chance that a couple new people apply? Or perhaps exclude someone who would have applied in order to get some of the site's duties and roles filled? There's no right or wrong answer there. Just different paths.

 

[Melisande Arneil]

This past summer was busy for many of us, so we weren't at full strength at that time. Life off the boards kinda reared its head and some of us needed to devote our time that way.

 

[Estella Sharina Agadis]

Yes, we'd already advertised Keeper, and like I said in a previous post, that was most likely an error, so we need to work with what we have and learn for the future.

I'm the union representative at my workplace, and heavily involved in most hirings for my particular profession. I can say with 100% certainty that if we'd been in this particular situation at my workplace, we would have extended the application deadline (giving the applicants notice that we had done so) or begun the process anew. I've been involved in both solutions before. Typically, the goal in all the hiring processes I've been involved in so far has been to find the right applicant for the job, not just to fill the position as quickly as possible and "work with what we have". Rather than risk not finding the best applicant we'll go without filling the position for a little while longer, even if it's a vital job. The possible negative consequences of picking the wrong applicant are generally considered greater than the disadvantages of going without someone in the job for a week or two longer. While I acknowledge that the process possibly has gone too far now to do so now (if you've actually begun interviewing applicants and are getting ready to hire, as it seems from the comments in here) I do genuinely believe you should have extended the application process as soon as you decided to split the job in two and that not doing so was a huge mistake on the Board's part. If you had done that immediately, you would have been certain that you're not missing out on possible applicants that could've been right for each individual position without feeling they were right for the combined position. You also wouldn't have delayed the hiring process by much, while quite possibly being able to choose from an even greater pool of qualified applicants. And you wouldn't have been met with the same level of (justified, imho) criticism to a decision that in itself is very good.

So in summary: The decision itself is a good one, and one that I applaud, but I do think you should have chosen a different approach to how you've handled the process itself. Other than that I generally think you're doing a good job, and I'm grateful for the work you're putting in for us.

 

[Alexstrasz Ruskein]

Alex is absolutely correct - no one *has* to trust, no one *has* to agree.

:fistbump

I appreciate y'all's willingness to engage with the concerns and criticism. And I do think splitting the role in two was a good choice.

 

[Alyria Ess]

@Estella Sharina Agadis you may be interested in my membership advocacy ideas

 

[Melisande Arneil]

I really want to thank everyone for engaging and sharing your thoughts with us on this change. Like Viv said, we had the same discussion between the 5 of us regarding how to proceed. We will continue with the hiring process as it stands, and hope to have the new Keeper and CMO announced in the near future.

If anyone has a WoTish name that they think would fit the CMO position, feel free to email us at the board! We have a couple of suggestions, but can't hurt to have a couple more to look at