Re: Proposal, was: Re: Problem application
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:43:20PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 08:56:37AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > >
> > > While we are not strictly "deligates of the DPL" we do enjoy the full
> > > support of the DAM in this reguard. We may still need to present our
> > > "findings" to him for final approval, but I don't want him to have to
> > > shoulder the responsibility for the decission on _his_ own either. This is
> > > a problem that is better shared.
The DAM is the DPL delegate. The DAM has delegated his evaluation role to
the FD people who have in turn farmed it out to others is how I see this.
> OK, lets see if I have a process that will work:
>
> 1. Either one of the AMs or the Front Desk receives mail from a third
> party, declaring an applicant in the queue to be undesirable.
>
> 2. That AM should pass this information to the Front Desk for action.
>
> 3. FD contacts the third party and asks for specific information about the
> applicant in question.
>
> 4. When this information has been provided, the FD contacts the applicant,
> presenting the information delivered. This contact will declare the
> options that the applicant has. They can either remove their application
> or they can choose to defend themselves before the collective AMs. This
> defense requires that the applicant identify themselves to the group and
> present their defense.
>
> 5. Once the applicant has completed his defense and answered all questions
> from the AM (board of enquiry?) that group will decide on the
> acceptability of the applicant.
>
> 6. Depending on the outcome of the "trial" the FD will either reject the
> application in the name of the group, or assign an AM if rejection is not
> considered necessary.
What kind of "evidence" would warrent exclusion? That kind of thing isn't
publically quantified or listed anywhere and until/unless it is we are
simply acting as a Cabal.
To me the simplest way to deal with this is to reassign `problem' applicants
to the DAM. They are the DPL delegate, let them reject them.
Anand
--
I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone
All my dreams, pass before my eyes a curiosity
Dust in the wind, All we are is dust in the wind
Don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
Dust in the Wind -- Kansas, Don Kirshner
Reply to: