I understand and appreciate that people are concerned about the qualifications of ambassadors. But look, it is going to take a vote of at least 6 out of 9 TB members to (as we do with ALL things we do) RECOMMEND TO RANDY that someone be made a forum ambassador.
Which all goes to dhammer's hypothesis:
Originally Posted by dhammer53
I think Talk Board has plenty to do without spending time vetting people to become Ambassadors.
The whole point of the TB is to make recommendations to a very busy Randy. Those recommendations have to have a high degree of consensus and then Randy can decide if the recommendation makes sense or not. Same exact deal with this program. We don't have a minimum standard or metric for creating or eliminating forums because there are too many nuances involved in such a recommendation. Same with ambassadors, imho.
So to sum up:
- The bar to be made an ambassador is NOT set low. To the contrary it is set very high: 2/3 of the TB plus Randy.
- The program is designed to identify and 'reward' and encourage FT 'angels.'
So, while the discussion of what the TB ought to be for looking for to
deny a person the ambassador title seems to be the focus so far, perhaps a more useful and productive use of time and thought might be to concentrate on what specifically the TB ought to be looking for in
approving ambassadors? Because personally I'd rather define the program by the way it can be earned rather than on what causes an automatic denial.
YMMV!
