Changes: PvXwiki:Evaluating Build Masters

Latest revision as of 15:50, 1 February 2010

This page is an archived policy on PvXwiki.

This policy was at one point considered standard, but has since fallen out of favour.

Shortcut: PvX:EVB PW:EVB

One of the roles of the Bureaucrat is to ensure that the Wiki is running optimally at all times. This responsibility manifested itself partly in the evaluation of the Build Master team.

Reviewing New Build masters

While some administrative candidates may have at first glance appeared to be well-suited to BMship, it was difficult to accurately gauge their suitability until that user had actually begun to perform in the role of an build master. Thus, all persons promoted to the role of build master underwent a build master Review about one month after promotion in order to gauge their performance in that capacity.

Two important considerations were as follows. First, the period of 1-month need not be taken to mean a static date exactly 1 month after promotion. Second, while a discussion of how a new build master functioned would and did take place, such an evaluation was in no way meant to interfere with or undermine that Administrator's authority, nor was it viewed as undermining the validity of that Administrator's promotion.

Reviewing Old Build masters

While Bureaucrats were constantly monitoring the performance of the BM staff in order to ensure that things were running smoothly, periodically, at the discretion of the Bureaucratic staff, a more formal discussion of the BM staff could take place after the 1-month mark.

Build master Reviews

When a build master review took place, the aim in mind was not to demote build masters, it is merely to evaluate their performance. Indeed, with the exception of the 1-month Review, if a Bureaucrat deemed it prudent to undertake a Build Master Review of the BM team, it means that the entire team was being evaluated. But, again, that didn't mean that the entire team was being considered for demotion. If, at the end of the review, it was determined that everything was running smoothly, then so much the better. However, if at the conclusion of such a Review was that a Build Master was not functioning in a satisfactory manner, a secondary evaluation would be undertaken to consider the question of demotion.

The reviews themselves would be conducted by the Bureaucratic staff with the Build masters acting in an advisory capacity. Furthermore, any member of the general user-base could contact a Bureaucrat with their input as well.

What We Looked For

As stated above, we were primarily interested in making sure that the BM staff was operating smoothly. As such, we were primarily interested in how the build masters were contributing in their capacity as a build master: Were they policing the Wiki? Were they taking their own initiative and helping to develop the Wiki? Were they helping to shape site policy?

If the answers to those and similar questions were yes, then a build master had nothing to worry about. For the most part, users were only considered for a secondary evaluation (i.e. one assessing the possibility of demotion) if they were actively detracting from the Wiki by their actions or their attitude. For example, if a build master was felt to have been abusing his authority/BM powers, they would likely be considered for a secondary evaluation. If however it was deemed that a build master was detracting from the Wiki and had, as a result, irrevocably lost the trust of the BM staff, then that build master could be demoted.

However, while it was usually only the detrimental build master who was considered for demotion, it was also important to note that simply doing nothing at all wasn't acceptable either. That meant that build masters who were either absent for extremely prolonged periods or who might as well have been (i.e. build masters who never acted in their capacity as a build master and as such were deemed not to warrant the continued responsibility of being a build master) could also be considered for demotion. However, this did not mean that build masters should have felt obliged to do specific tasks, nor did it imply that anything like a quota system was being employed.

Secondary Reviews

The "Secondary Reviews" (those that pertained to the question of demotion) were no different in substance from the primary evaluations. If a build master was considered for a Secondary Review, the questions remained the same, and the Bureaucratic staff looked for the same qualities, it merely became a question of whether actual action needed to be taken.

A Final Note

While the final decision always ultimately rested with the Bureaucratic staff, since the entire BM team would be affected by any actual action that was taken, it was generally accepted that the entire BM staff (with the possible exception of inactive build masters) could be consulted in an advisory capacity before a final decision was rendered in order to prevent division within the BM team.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Archived Policy|[[PvX:EVB]]<br>[[PW:EVB]]}}
-__TOC__
+{{TOCright}}
-One of the roles of the Bureaucrat is to ensure that the Wiki is running optimally at all times.  This responsibility manifests itself partly in the evaluation of the Administrative team.
+One of the roles of the Bureaucrat is to ensure that the Wiki is running optimally at all times.  This responsibility manifested itself partly in the evaluation of the Build Master team.
-== Reviewing New Sysops ==
+== Reviewing New Build masters ==
-While some administrative candidates may at first glance appear to be well-suited to Adminship, it is difficult to accurately gauge their suitability until that user has actually begun to perform in the role of an Admin. Thus, all persons promoted to the role of Sysop will undergo a Sysop Review  about one month after promotion in order to gauge their performance in that capacity.
+While some administrative candidates may have at first glance appeared to be well-suited to BMship, it was difficult to accurately gauge their suitability until that user had actually begun to perform in the role of an build master. Thus, all persons promoted to the role of build master underwent a build master Review about one month after promotion in order to gauge their performance in that capacity.
-Two important considerations are as follows.  First, the period of 1-month need not be taken to mean a static date exactly 1 month after promotion.  Second, while a discussion of how a new Administrator is functioning should and will take place, such an evaluation is in no way meant to interfere with or undermine that Administrator's authority, nor should it be viewed as undermining the validity of that Administrator's promotion.
+Two important considerations were as follows. First, the period of 1-month need not be taken to mean a static date exactly 1 month after promotion.  Second, while a discussion of how a new build master functioned would and did take place, such an evaluation was in no way meant to interfere with or undermine that Administrator's authority, nor was it viewed as undermining the validity of that Administrator's promotion.
-== Reviewing Old Sysops ==
+== Reviewing Old Build masters ==
-While Bureaucrats are constantly monitoring the performance of the Administrative staff in order to ensure that things are running smoothly, periodically, at the discretion of the Bureaucratic staff, a more formal discussion of the Administrative staff may take place after the 1-month mark.
+While Bureaucrats were constantly monitoring the performance of the BM staff in order to ensure that things were running smoothly, periodically, at the discretion of the Bureaucratic staff, a more formal discussion of the BM staff could take place after the 1-month mark.
-== Sysop Reviews ==
+== Build master Reviews ==
-When a Sysop review takes place, the aim in mind is not to demote Sysops, it is merely to evaluate their performance.  Indeed, with the exception of the 1-month Review, if a Bureaucrat deems it prudent to undertake a Sysop Review of the current Administrative team, it means that the ''entire'' team is being evaluated.  But, again, this does not mean that the entire team is being considered for demotion.  If, at the end of the review, it is determined that everything is running smoothly, then, so much the better.  However, if it the conclusion of such a Review is that an Administrator is not functioning in a satisfactory manner, a secondary evaluation may be undertaken to consider the question of demotion.
+When a build master review took place, the aim in mind was not to demote build masters, it is merely to evaluate their performance.  Indeed, with the exception of the 1-month Review, if a Bureaucrat deemed it prudent to undertake a Build Master Review of the BM team, it means that the ''entire'' team was being evaluated.  But, again, that didn't mean that the entire team was being considered for demotion.  If, at the end of the review, it was determined that everything was running smoothly, then so much the better.  However, if at the conclusion of such a Review was that a Build Master was not functioning in a satisfactory manner, a secondary evaluation would be undertaken to consider the question of demotion.
-The reviews themselves will be conducted by the Bureaucratic staff with the Sysops acting in an advisory capacity.
+The reviews themselves would be conducted by the Bureaucratic staff with the Build masters acting in an advisory capacity.  Furthermore, any member of the general user-base could [[PvXwiki:Administrators#Contacting an Administrator|contact]] a Bureaucrat with their input as well.
-=== What We Look For ===
+=== What We Looked For ===
-As stated above, we are primarily interested in making sure that the administrative staff is operating smoothly.  As such, we are primarily interested in how the Administrators are contributing in their capacity as an Administrator: Are they policing the Wiki?  Are they taking their own initiative and helping to develop the Wiki?  Are they helping to shape site policy?
+As stated above, we were primarily interested in making sure that the BM staff was operating smoothly.  As such, we were primarily interested in how the build masters were contributing in their capacity as a build master: Were they policing the Wiki?  Were they taking their own initiative and helping to develop the Wiki?  Were they helping to shape site policy?
-If the answers to these and similar questions are yes, then an Administrator has nothing to worry about.  For the most part, users are only considered for a secondary evaluation (i.e. one assessing the possibility of demotion) if they are actively detracting from the Wiki by their actions or their attitude.  For example, if an Administrator is felt to have been abusing his authority/Administrative powers, they would likely be considered for a secondary evaluation.  If however it is deemed that an Administrator is detracting from the Wiki and has, as a result, irrevocably lost the trust of the Administrative staff, then that Administrator may be demoted.
+If the answers to those and similar questions were yes, then a build master had nothing to worry about.  For the most part, users were only considered for a secondary evaluation (i.e. one assessing the possibility of demotion) if they were actively detracting from the Wiki by their actions or their attitude.  For example, if a build master was felt to have been abusing his authority/BM powers, they would likely be considered for a secondary evaluation.  If however it was deemed that a build master was detracting from the Wiki and had, as a result, irrevocably lost the trust of the BM staff, then that build master could be demoted.
-However, while it is usually only the detrimental Administrators who are considered for demotion, it is also important to note that simply doing nothing at all isn't acceptable either.  This means that Administrators who are either absent for extremely prolonged periods or who might as well be (i.e. Administrators who never act in their capacity as an Administrator and as such are deemed not to warrant the continued responsibility of being a Sysop) may also be considered for demotion.  However, this does ''not'' mean that Administrators should feel obliged to do ''specific'' tasks, nor does it imply that anything like a quota system is being employed.
+However, while it was usually only the detrimental build master who was considered for demotion, it was also important to note that simply doing nothing at all wasn't acceptable either.  That meant that build masters who were either absent for extremely prolonged periods or who might as well have been (i.e. build masters who never acted in their capacity as a build master and as such were deemed not to warrant the continued responsibility of being a build master) could also be considered for demotion.  However, this did ''not'' mean that build masters should have felt obliged to do ''specific'' tasks, nor did it imply that anything like a quota system was being employed.
 === Secondary Reviews ===
-The "Secondary Reviews" (those that pertain to the question of demotion) are no different in substance from the primary evaluations.  If an Administrator is considered for a Secondary Review, the questions remain the same, and the Bureaucratic staff looks for the same qualities, it merely becomes a question of whether actual action need be taken.
+The "Secondary Reviews" (those that pertained to the question of demotion) were no different in substance from the primary evaluations.  If a build master was considered for a Secondary Review, the questions remained the same, and the Bureaucratic staff looked for the same qualities, it merely became a question of whether actual action needed to be taken.
 == A Final Note ==
-While the final decision will always ultimately rest with the Bureaucratic staff, since the entire Administrative team will be affected by any actual action that is taken, it is generally accepted that the entire Administrative staff (with the possible exception of inactive Administrators) should be consulted in an advisory capacity before a final decision is rendered in order to prevent division within the Administrative team.
+While the final decision always ultimately rested with the Bureaucratic staff, since the entire BM team would be affected by any actual action that was taken, it was generally accepted that the entire BM staff (with the possible exception of inactive build masters) could be consulted in an advisory capacity before a final decision was rendered in order to prevent division within the BM team.