102 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
102 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Applicant Selection Process
|
|
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
|
path: Cooperative Foundations/Applicant Selection Process
|
|
parentDocument: null
|
|
outlineId: 6150980a-76a9-4d2a-99d1-acab58e3847e
|
|
updatedAt: '2026-03-23T22:24:23.433Z'
|
|
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
|
---
|
|
* Background on our pipeline, scoring system, rubrics, etc.
|
|
* Documentation of rubric used for each stage.
|
|
|
|
# The Decide Meeting
|
|
|
|
## What this is
|
|
|
|
This is the group meeting where we decide together which studios will join the cohort. *Every person in the meeting has a say in this decision.* We use consensus, meaning we don't move forward until everyone can fully support the new cohort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Who's invited
|
|
|
|
Program coordinators, the peer support coordinator, and all peer supports. Some peer supports interviewed studios directly. They asked their own questions and submitted their own reviews. Others didn't interview but have full access to all application materials, scores, and notes through the [hub](https://hub.babyghosts.org). No one has more weight in this discussion than anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## How it works
|
|
|
|
We discuss each studio one at a time, adding our thoughts to a miro board the coordinators will make in advance of the meeting. We then work through any concerns or ties until we reach a selection everyone supports.
|
|
|
|
### Your prep
|
|
|
|
Review all studio materials in the hub: Applications, scores, reviewer notes, and self-assessments (especially for studios you didn't interview!). For each studio, come with a sense of: Do I think they're ready for this program? What excites me? What concerns me? Think about the cohort as a whole, not just individual studios. Which combination would make the strongest group?
|
|
|
|
You don't need to write anything down or share beforehand! And don't spend all day on this!
|
|
|
|
### Roles
|
|
|
|
We assign three roles before the meeting. Think about volunteering to facilitate! *We prefer that a peer support runs it, not a coordinator.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The *facilitator* guides the conversation and ensures everyone speaks. They manage the process, *not content*.
|
|
2. The *note-taker* captures important points, concerns raised (and by whom), and the final decision with reasoning/rationale.
|
|
3. The *time-keeper* ensures the discussion moves towards the final decision and lets everyone know how much time is remaining in each section.
|
|
|
|
### Discussion
|
|
|
|
We go through each studio one at a time. For each one:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The two peer supports who interviewed that studio share what they observed: What stood out, what concerned them, how the team interacted. *Coordinators hold back unless asked a direct question.*
|
|
2. Anyone can ask factual/clarifying questions.
|
|
3. *Everyone* shares a brief reaction onto the mirror board. One sentence is fine.
|
|
|
|
If you interviewed a studio, please share what you observed. What stood out? What gave you pause? How did the team interact with each other?
|
|
|
|
If you didn't interview a studio, just come ready to share your impressions based on the hub materials. Your outside perspective is extra valuable!!
|
|
|
|
Share your actual reaction. There's no need to be diplomatic (the teams won't see your comments) and it's okay to say you're not sure!
|
|
|
|
### Signal check
|
|
|
|
After discussing all studios, we use Slack reactions to see where the group stands. A coordinator posts one message per studio and the facilitator asks everyone to react.
|
|
|
|
Reactions:
|
|
|
|
* 💚 I support this studio being in the cohort
|
|
* ✋ I have concerns I'd like to discuss before agreeing
|
|
* 🛑 I can't support this - I believe it would *cause harm* to the studio or the cohort
|
|
|
|
### Working toward consensus
|
|
|
|
Studios where everyone reacted with green heart are in.
|
|
|
|
Studios where anyone raised a hand get discussed further. The concerned person explains, the group talks it through, and the concerned person decides whether the discussion has addressed their questions enough to change their reaction.
|
|
|
|
If more studios have support than there are spots, we work through the contested picks together until we land on a selection everyone can support, *even if it's nobody's first choice*.
|
|
|
|
### What consensus is *not*
|
|
|
|
Consensus does not mean everyone must be equally enthusiastic about every team. It means no one has a concern serious enough that they believe the decision would cause harm to the studio, the cohort, the program, or our community.
|
|
|
|
Consensus also does not mean the loudest concerns win. If one person has a strong objection but can't articulate why it rises to the level of "this would cause harm," the group can respectfully note the concern and still move forward.
|
|
|
|
Consensus doesn't mean this is your dream cohort. It means you can stand behind the selection and support these studios fully once the program starts.
|
|
|
|
### Closing
|
|
|
|
The facilitator posts the proposed cohort in Slack and asks everyone to react with a green heart if they can support it. If everyone reacts, the decision is made. If someone can't, we go back to their concern.
|
|
|
|
After the cohort is selected, peer supports indicate which studios they're most interested in working with (top 3). This doesn't need consensus - it's input for coordinators to use when making assignments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::warning
|
|
### Confidentiality
|
|
|
|
The notes from this meeting are confidential to the peer support team and coordinators. Studios should never learn the specific concerns raised about them during the decide session.
|
|
|
|
:::
|