Greetings!

Here’s a summary of tasks from the NAT meeting 2020-01-03, “Promotion of NAT ”. This includes Criteria for picking a NAT member, Spotting NAT candidates and BNs' Evaluation .


Criteria for picking NAT ✓

1. Create a wiki article detailing what we look for in NAT candidates (Deadline 2020-01-??) ✓
2. Document that NAT team size depends on our work fields being covered ✓
   - e.g. adding QAH management as work field would lead to more

Spotting NAT candidates

1. Implement a candidate marker on evaluation cards
2. Show a new candidate-specific field for similarly to modding/behaviour
3. Document that only candidates close to becoming NAT should be marked

BNs' Evaluation ✓

1. Show anonymous notes from other evaluators ✓
2. Indicate whether evaluations are made by NAT or BNs ✓
3. Only show the notes from the consensus (e.g. if fail, show fail and neutral notes), similarly to veto mediations ✓

If we’ve missed a task related to the meeting, or you have questions or concerns about existing tasks, feel free to post in this thread. We won’t follow it very actively, however, so responses may be infrequent.

First

Kuron-kun wrote: 1u6w5q

Spotting NAT candidates

1. Implement a candidate marker on evaluation cards
2. Show a new candidate-specific field for similarly to modding/behaviour
3. Document that only candidates close to becoming NAT should be marked

what makes the current notes system not work for this? the proposal sounds like another note basically (since all info could fit in a note and nat are barely using the notes for anything else relevant anyway?)

Kuron-kun wrote: 1u6w5q

BNs' Evaluation

1. Show anonymous notes from other evaluators
2. Indicate whether evaluations are made by NAT or BNs
3. Only show the notes from the consensus (e.g. if fail, show fail and neutral notes), similarly to veto mediations

this is done