Nightski, that you have shown your willingness and intent to overhaul the section is a ray of hope for it as it was undeniably drifting away from both the expectations of general members and your intent as you outlined it when still in the section's infancy.

You recognize that both the quality and consistency of the critique was under scrutiny and quite naturally deduce that the solution is to “recruit” people who are “qualified”.

Some immediate questions that spring to mind….

Qualifications:-

You require people making application to have formal critique experience.

What does that mean? Professionally? Having successfully completed training? As a judge or critic for a competition?

If so, singularly or as part of a panel? Of what level of competition? Would having done that on only one occasion suffice? If not how many is the minimum?

Your “interview”.

How will that operate? Will there be a number of set questions? If so, who will pose them? Are you intending to post the list of questions? Will prospective applicants have to travel in order to attend? Will you be the interviewee or will you be one of a number of people on an applicants’ evaluation board? What are the required qualifications for people sitting on such a board? If you are a part of the selection team, what are your qualifications? What are the minimum requirements for prospective applicants? Will you be lowering those minimum requirements if insufficient interest is demonstrated? If so, to what level will you relax your standards? How many critics are you requiring? Will one be enough? What if that is all that you can attract? Will you be advertising your minimum qualifications?

I have obviously not digested or considered your new policy to anywhere near the extent that you have, however, I am sure you will answer these and all other questions which will come to my humbly informed mind at such time as when your full plan is released.

Rob.

Nightski, that you have shown your willingness and intent to overhaul the section is a ray of hope for it as it was undeniably drifting away from both the expectations of general members and your intent as you outlined it when still in the section's infancy.

You recognize that both the quality and consistency of the critique was under scrutiny and quite naturally deduce that the solution is to “recruit” people who are “qualified”.

Some immediate questions that spring to mind….

Qualifications:-

You require people making application to have formal critique experience.

What does that mean? Professionally? Having successfully completed training? As a judge or critic for a competition?

If so, singularly or as part of a panel? Of what level of competition? Would having done that on only one occasion suffice? If not how many is the minimum?

Your “interview”.

How will that operate? Will there be a number of set questions? If so, who will pose them? Are you intending to post the list of questions? Will prospective applicants have to travel in order to attend? Will you be the interviewee or will you be one of a number of people on an applicants’ evaluation board? What are the required qualifications for people sitting on such a board? If you are a part of the selection team, what are your qualifications? What are the minimum requirements for prospective applicants? Will you be lowering those minimum requirements if insufficient interest is demonstrated? If so, to what level will you relax your standards? How many critics are you requiring? Will one be enough? What if that is all that you can attract? Will you be advertising your minimum qualifications?

I have obviously not digested or considered your new policy to anywhere near the extent that you have, however, I am sure you will answer these and all other questions which will come to my humbly informed mind at such time as when your full plan is released.

Rob.