2014-10-12 0:47 GMT+02:00 Filip Maljković dungodung@gmail.com:
Hello everyone,
I'd like to announce Ivan Nikčević as the new Executive Director of Wikimedia Serbia.
Congratulations Wikimedia Serbia and welcome, Ivan!
Cristian
Great news! Congratulations!
I hope WMRS could tell us how was the experience and difficulties of choosing a new ED. Such kind of storytelling might be the basis for future best practices on getting staff.
Welcome Ivan!
2014-10-15 4:20 GMT-05:00 Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2014-10-12 0:47 GMT+02:00 Filip Maljković dungodung@gmail.com:
Hello everyone,
I'd like to announce Ivan Nikčević as the new Executive Director of
Wikimedia Serbia.
Congratulations Wikimedia Serbia and welcome, Ivan!
Cristian
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 10/16/2014 07:12 AM, Salvador A wrote:
Great news! Congratulations!
I hope WMRS could tell us how was the experience and difficulties of choosing a new ED. Such kind of storytelling might be the basis for future best practices on getting staff.
Thanks! :)
Well, to me (someone who was involved in the process from the get-go and through the entire thing), the greatest difficulty was the sheer amount of submissions -- 224.
So, our process was as follows: we announced the job opening on two relevant sites and accepted submissions during the course of 3 weeks. After reviewing all the CVs, the committee (originally consisting of 3 persons) members gave their ternary grades (+, -, or ?) for each candidate. Those with not enough "positive votes" weren't considered anymore, but those with any sort of significant support were discussed at a long meeting, where we finally made a list of people who would be invited in the first round of interviews.
Around 30 people participated in the first round, and that was spread throughout 3 days (about 12 hours in total, so about 20 minutes per candidate). After that, we made a shortlist for the second round and that included 6 best candidates. We were quite strict with some criteria, but we had to be in order to narrow things down significantly.
The second round was held during the course of one afternoon, and the committee was broadened by a few board members. The second round consisted of a short test (literacy and general knowledge) and a half hour interview, that was broader in scope than the first one: we gave each of the candidates one of the project proposals we got from our volunteers for the Annual Grant 2015, so the candidates had to comment them and try to see how the project fit in our mission, what should be changed etc.
After the interviews, we had some deliberations that lasted longer than anticipated, but after about a week, one candidate bubbled up and we selected him -- Ivan.
That's the process in short (there were some other peculiarities, but they aren't quite relevant for this venue).
Cheers, Filip
Welcome Ivan, and have a good start! Congratulations to WMRS to have finished this difficult task, and thanks for sharing your experience. That is very helpful!
Best
Am 16.10.2014 08:21, schrieb Filip Maljkovic:
On 10/16/2014 07:12 AM, Salvador A wrote:
Great news! Congratulations!
I hope WMRS could tell us how was the experience and difficulties of choosing a new ED. Such kind of storytelling might be the basis for future best practices on getting staff.
Thanks! :)
Well, to me (someone who was involved in the process from the get-go and through the entire thing), the greatest difficulty was the sheer amount of submissions -- 224.
So, our process was as follows: we announced the job opening on two relevant sites and accepted submissions during the course of 3 weeks. After reviewing all the CVs, the committee (originally consisting of 3 persons) members gave their ternary grades (+, -, or ?) for each candidate. Those with not enough "positive votes" weren't considered anymore, but those with any sort of significant support were discussed at a long meeting, where we finally made a list of people who would be invited in the first round of interviews.
Around 30 people participated in the first round, and that was spread throughout 3 days (about 12 hours in total, so about 20 minutes per candidate). After that, we made a shortlist for the second round and that included 6 best candidates. We were quite strict with some criteria, but we had to be in order to narrow things down significantly.
The second round was held during the course of one afternoon, and the committee was broadened by a few board members. The second round consisted of a short test (literacy and general knowledge) and a half hour interview, that was broader in scope than the first one: we gave each of the candidates one of the project proposals we got from our volunteers for the Annual Grant 2015, so the candidates had to comment them and try to see how the project fit in our mission, what should be changed etc.
After the interviews, we had some deliberations that lasted longer than anticipated, but after about a week, one candidate bubbled up and we selected him -- Ivan.
That's the process in short (there were some other peculiarities, but they aren't quite relevant for this venue).
Cheers, Filip
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org