User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11

FA process coordinator selection proposal

There are about the same number of 'crats and FA process people: about 20 bureaucrats, and about 16 very active current or former FA process appointees (23 still somewhat active total: director, delegate, coord – FAC, FAR, TFA). That's enough active people that no one person can pre-dominate, and a variety of voices are heard, but the number is not so big as to result in an unmanageable conversation.

The proposal is that new FA process Coord appointments be modeled partly on the way a 'crat chat works, partly on the way Arb elections work, and partly on the way FA-process app'ts are done now.

1. Announcement of a vacancy happens at FAC, FAR or TFA.
2. About one week provides for either candidates to step forward, or current Coords to harangue people backchannel into being willing to serve.
3. Formal candidate statements are put forward: things like what are your strengths, skill set, how you view the role, your ideas for improvement or change, how you would handle X, Y or Z, etc. Others can ask questions in a structured format, similar to ArbCom candidate statements and Arbcom candidate questions. One-week at most. The difference between the FA process and arb elections is regulars know these people, so questions won't go all left field, trying to figure out what a candidate stands for, as they do in arb elections.
4. The equivalent of a 'crat chat happens (sample), where the current and former FA process people openly and transparently discuss the possibilities to develop the proposed slate of candidates to be proposed to the community for ratification. Others can observe or enter questions only on the talk page. Depending on how quickly consensus forms, about three to five days at most.
5. Current serving Coords decide consensus for a proposed slate, based on the (transparent, public) FA-chat.
6. The current process Coords (for that page, FAC, FAR or TFA) offer a slate for the community to Support or Oppose; the community by then has seen candidate statements and the FA-chat. So the straight !vote (popularity problem) is avoided, as the slate is proposed by a consensus of appointees now serving, but the process by which the consensus was reached is a) broader and b) more transparent, and c) allows for more flexibility in things like moving Coords from one process to another.
7. If consensus is clear, the discussion is closed by a Coord other than the Coords for that page who proposed the slate, and the slate is promoted. If consensus is murky, an outside request for closure is requested.