CZ:Managing Editor/2010/007 - Criteria for Editorship

From Citizendium
< CZ:Managing Editor‎ | 2010
Revision as of 19:23, 16 January 2011 by imported>Anthony.Sebastian (Suggested basic considerations)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Citizendium Managing Editor
Community input | Pending decisions | Decisions | Referrals | Appeals | Guidelines | External relations

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Statement of problem

Please be brief and specific in your request (polar questions are best) and add relevant links if available. Please state a time frame in which you expect a decision.

Currently, there are no clear guidelines as to how expertise should be recognized in the framework of the project. These guidelines will have to be issued by the Editorial Council, and a request for them to do so was made a month ago, yet it has still not entered their formal process. I will thus collect ideas on the matter here and forward them to the EC when they are ready to handle the matter. --Daniel Mietchen 11:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments of Citizens

Suggested basic considerations:

  • If we stay with a Workgroup structure, possibly expanded with subgroups or additional workgroups, applicants for Editor status need to document their qualifications for only a single aspect of the broad subject covered by a Workgroup to receive Editor status in that Workgroup;
    • Editor status is renewable after the first six months, permanent thereafter consistent with Editorial and Management policies;
    • A flexible set of criteria for the nature of the documentation required for evaluation of an applicant's request for Editor status;
    • Authors whose contributions indicate potential Editorship capability may be encouaged to consider applying for Editor status, through Editorial Council vote;
  • Qualifications for Editor status do not necessarily qualify the Editor to render an approval/non-approval ruling on an article nominated for approval, or to nominate or second/third a nomination of an article for approval;
    • Separate guidelines need developing for an Editor to qualify to render an approval/non-approval ruling on an article nominated for approval, or to nominate or second/third a nomination of an article for approval;

Anthony.Sebastian 01:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
++++


Formal restatement of problem

This section defines the section structure of the decision.

Existing applicable policy

Charter

  • Article 14: Editors are Citizens whose expertise in some field of knowledge is recognized and formally acknowledged by the community. Official recognition of expertise — obtained through education or experience — and its scope shall be based on guidelines established by the Editorial Council.

Decisions by the governing bodies

Auxiliary policy

Draft decision

The text below is what I plan to decide in this case. Feel free to edit the text if you think this improves it. If your edits require discussion, please use the dedicated section below. Editing and discussion in this "Draft decision" section shall stop 24h after my last edit to it.'

Discussion of Draft decision

When reading or editing this section, please keep in mind that the current version of the draft decision might be different from the one referred to by previous commenters.

Decision