New this month: Two users who have a recent history of strong posts and comments (Larks and Khorton)
Could you say more about the process by which Larks & Khorton were added to the roster of people who have a vote?
(I’m pretty sure I’ve been commenting & posting at the roughly same cadence as them. No one approached me about this, so I’m curious about the process here.)
After Julia decided to step down, I proposed a list of six Forum users who I thought might be good candidates. She and I discussed the options and decided to begin by reaching out to Larks and Khorton, who both accepted; if they hadn’t, I’d have approached other candidates who I believe would also be solid judges.
(There are many more than six contributors who I’d by open to considering; the original shortlist was just six people who quickly came to mind, among whom I expected we’d get at least two “yes” responses.)
I wanted to start with a relatively small addition, but there’s a good chance that the roster will expand later on. I can imagine getting up to a group of 8-10 people without the Prize becoming too difficult to coordinate, and I also wouldn’t be surprised if people sometimes joined up for a couple of months and then stepped down, based on their available time.
I also thought that since both Larks and Khorton have provided useful criticism of CEA’s work, and since the panel already has several CEA-affiliated judges, one advantage of the two new judges is that this moves us away from any existing pro-CEA slant. Not that they’re the only people in this category, but we thought they were good representatives of people who have expressed fair criticisms of CEA.
Could you say more about the process by which Larks & Khorton were added to the roster of people who have a vote?
(I’m pretty sure I’ve been commenting & posting at the roughly same cadence as them. No one approached me about this, so I’m curious about the process here.)
After Julia decided to step down, I proposed a list of six Forum users who I thought might be good candidates. She and I discussed the options and decided to begin by reaching out to Larks and Khorton, who both accepted; if they hadn’t, I’d have approached other candidates who I believe would also be solid judges.
(There are many more than six contributors who I’d by open to considering; the original shortlist was just six people who quickly came to mind, among whom I expected we’d get at least two “yes” responses.)
I wanted to start with a relatively small addition, but there’s a good chance that the roster will expand later on. I can imagine getting up to a group of 8-10 people without the Prize becoming too difficult to coordinate, and I also wouldn’t be surprised if people sometimes joined up for a couple of months and then stepped down, based on their available time.
I also thought that since both Larks and Khorton have provided useful criticism of CEA’s work, and since the panel already has several CEA-affiliated judges, one advantage of the two new judges is that this moves us away from any existing pro-CEA slant. Not that they’re the only people in this category, but we thought they were good representatives of people who have expressed fair criticisms of CEA.
As an active forum user, I would also be curious to hear about this.
I don’t know the answer, so I’m also kind of curious!