TOPIC: [Community Suggestion] Reviewing staff candidates

I completely support this.
Normally in the meetings it's a fuckfest of who can scream the hardest, this is a perfect solution.

they should be given a chance to speak anyway

#BadMeetingHosts

Jim_Jam wrote: Sometimes it doesn't come down to the meeting host, and rather it just comes down to the fact that they're overwhelmed by more powerful people with a more powerful voice which people would rather listen to.

Priority Speaker?

The idea of going through each person is a rather tedious and should be that if someone wishes to bring a point up that hasn't been said they have a chance to actually speak without having to fight people bringing up points already made. More respect needs to be given within meetings, if this respect is shown the meetings will become less time consuming and more productive with the possibility of more staff members attending.

Sally wrote: That's what I'm suggesting; the idea isn't to go through every single person in the meeting. The idea is to allow those who want it a chance to speak, and go through each person who has made it clear that they want to speak and have a separate point to bring up.

I think it's up to the meeting host to make sure everyone's opinion is herd but this would be a nice addition. Also (at least in the meetings that I take part in) usually the host always says "Does anyone else have anything to add?" before the vote its self so that's when someone should speak up.

Nick0GR wrote: even so, people end up getting ignored a lot of the time.

This does partially come down to the host. For example whenever I personally host (and usually even when I don't) I pay attention to who is trying to say something but can't get through, so when everyone else is done talking I quickly say "I believe X wanted to say something" to try to give them a chance as well. Besides, when hosting I also always ask "Does anyone have anything left to say" and if there's no response I'll ask for a strawpoll. This way everyone is at least given a fair chance without it becoming tedious.

This is down to the host - every person who expresses the wish to speak should be given the chance.
If we had something like this implemented, it would make meetings a lot more tedious and they would be a lot more droning, without any chance for anyone to enjoy them at all, becoming more like a "formal" meeting, which less people would want to attend.
Meetings would also last a lot longer - the host decides when a vote is called based on the fact that nobody wants to add anything new which would actually impact the outcome of the vote, it is pointless for everyone to just sit there for ages if it is going to change nothing, and it is down to the host to realise when that time is.

As Raeker said, the host should always question if there is anything more to add on the given candidate (I tend to say "Anything more to add on X", X being the name of the candidate, as it gives a chance for people to know who we are actually discussing if they were not paying attention), and if there is nothing more of value to add, then a vote should begin, and if not, then they should give a chance for more to be added.

+support