Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus Can an explanation be posted on why only
"chartered members" and "chartered fellows"
can be considered for the role of a moderator,
and not "any member"
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IOSH Web Manager Hi Salus,
CMIOSH and CFIOSH are the equivalent category to the former MIOSH RSP and FIOSH RSP.
You may recollect Registered Safety Practitioner (RSP) was the designation given to members opting to complete on-going CPD cycles before the membership structure was revised.
When the forums moderating team was set up many moons ago, designation as MIOSH RSP or FIOSH RSP was originally agreed as one of the criteria for moderators by the forerunner of Communications Committee. The equivalent categories i.e. CMIOSH and CFIOSH, have been endorsed by the current Communications Committee.
There are now many more CMIOSH and CFIOSH members than there previously were RSP members and as more members become chartered, their numbers continue to increase - 'looks like the door's opening wider.
Best regards,
Angela Wheatcroft
Web Manager
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese I don't think that has quite answered the question Angela, but I would like to know why the question was asked.
Salus, do you have a view on who should be considered for appointment as moderators?
It is quite a difficult job. I've just had a thread ruined (and asked for it to be removed) because of irrelevant/biased comments (as it happens by Salus) but that doesn't mean moderation should be restricted to certain levels of membership - does it?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman I like to believe that moderators are drawn from a pool of members who have wide experience and knowledge of the profession. A minimum of CMIOSH, preferably with CSP, is essential.
I don't think I have ever disagreed with any of their decisions (even when it was my thread that got shredded)
I also commend the recent trend of polite, advance warnings that a particular thread is going a bit wonky.
Merv
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth Why is CMIOSH essential for the role of moderator? A moderator's role is to monitor the discussion forums to ensure that any posting complies with the AUGs, not to be the fount of all health and safety knowledge. Many discussions on these forums centre around the different levels of membership and as such, surely the moderators should be drawn from a cross section of such membership.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alexander Falconer There are many at Tech IOSH/Tech SP who may have many more years experience than some of the CMIOSH members.
A trawl through the careers forum, have highlighted a number of CMIOSH members actively searching for new roles, and having less 5 years experience.
Me, have over 13 years experience in HSE, QA, HR & Training, but only a "lowly" Tech IOSH/Tech SP.
And, no I am not a disgruntled member who is "jealous" of those at CMIOSH (sat the Dip 2 exams in Dec 06, so awaiting results on 2nd March)
Thought the whole concept of IOSH was to look after the interests of the members (this means everyone)
We all aspire at some point to attain the dizzy heights of CMIOSH, attainment does not mean you can decide on my future with IOSH. There should be an equal mix of all members, after all your HSE/works committees are comprised of an equal mix of employee/management.
Surely restricting to CMIOSH/CFIOSH could be construed as discrimination to the lower grades under Equal Opportunities?
Alex
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth I think you are correct it is discrimination, or rather it's elitism. Maybe IOSH should ask itself the question "Do we really want anything other than chartered members?" because it seems at the moment that those below chartered level are only good for supplying membership fees.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Shyer I don't think it has anything to do with some members being aggrieved at being moderated by anyone at a lower level of membership???.
Regards
Ted
PS: Peter you cheeky monkey!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus "who here is Spartacus"
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese Salus, you started the thread so I thought you might have an opinion on it.
Personally I can't see how grade of membership comes into. THis is a forum open to all - being a member of the forum is not limited to IOSH members.
Surely then, all forum members are entitled to be in the pool?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By andrew morris Why do threads like this always turn into a them and us battle?
In every profession there are different grades - and generally these are based on academic qualifications as they are a way to measure someones competance.
I am sure that the choice to limit moderators to MIOSH was not a cynical or considered attack at those not at that grade.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IOSH Web Manager Hi, We'll be reviewing the moderator application process after the latest set of applicants has been through the cycle of applying, training and being appointed as moderators. We’ll include the criteria in the review. I’d anticipate that being about a year from now. In the meantime, you might like to try one of the other volunteering options http://www.iosh.co.uk/volunteer or consider putting the time into becoming chartered. Cheers, Angela Wheatcroft Web Manager
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus Thanks for the reply Angela, can members do the review for you on this forum?
You could ask all who want to vote if applicants should be open to all members. Replies must be just a Y or N vote, no other wording and just count them up at the end.
This seems a fair way
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese .....with tongue firmly in cheek.......
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Shyer Not wanting to be disrespectful to the moderators, and not wishing to be devils advocate (Kanda my shoes are Prada) Is there not a case for opening the roll out for moderators to non chartered members.
Look at the forums and you will see my point there are at least 6 blatant adverts on the forums that have been there for nearly 24 hours.
Regards
Ted
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11 Hi Salus, personally speaking I think the MOD's do a good job at keeping the forum clean and tidy (I've had stuff taken off and although miffed, I acknowledge the reasons for its removal). A MOD needs to have sufficient experience, maturity, competency, level of technical knowledge and people skills to handle the stuff that gets posted on here... recognised by the designatory letters after their names they've worked for.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Shyer Saracen11,
Wouldn't GradIOSH and especially TechIOSH (minimum 5 years experience required) meet the requirement you state?
Regards
Ted
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese Why is a level of technical knowledge required?
The moderation function isn't to remove erroneous H&S information - believe me if it was, a lot of postings would have to be removed.
Sometimes there is a case for revisiting original criterion to see if it still stands up. I have no faith a review by IOSH members would reach a different criterion.
A review by forum members would be a truly democratic move and would provide a better indication - unfortunately I have no faith this type of review would even be considered let alone agreed.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11 Hi Salus/Ted, yes they would meet the requirements.
A person passes their driving test on a Saturday and is considered as a competent person, the same as a person that passed their test five years ago? Both are to start driving double decker buses on the Monday (driver '2' has been driven double decker's for the last three years). You would feel at equal ease with both drivers?
Discuss...
Regards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Shyer personally don't know if the bus driver that I use (pay my money and get home) has had licence and driving for 1-2-3 or even 20 years he is competent.
The point I am making is that competence (and no i don't want to get in a debate on the definition of competence this has been flogged to death over the years) is based on the capability on the individual and the potential moderator interview process should identify this amongst any other qualities required.
I am beginning to think that my first posting is probably closer to the the mark.
regards
Ted
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese Saracen - Are you comparing bus driving to moderating a forum?
Should we stop there, how about heart surgery or pilots?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11 Hi Salus/Peter, I am comparing bus drivers to Moderators... in as much as the levels of competency/experience/maturity/qualification etc will differ from person to person - not every 'driver' can drive a bus... in the same way not every Safety Practitioner can moderate. C'mon mate, you knew what I meant!
Regards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese It isn't technical skill you need to moderate a forum, it is common sense and tact. Technical ability is not an issue - unless like you, you make it one.
And no Mate, I din no wot you ment
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11 Hi Salus/Peter, "tact and common sense" what like ridiculing someone because they have a different opinion than you???? I'm not playing forum tennis Peter... take care.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese My apologies Saracen. I'm not sure ridicule is the right word but it certainly wasn't intentional.
You can see I wouldn't be a very good moderator!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus The reason I asked the question was I thought it unfair that this process was not open to all members,it is still not and I still do.
we are all members of this Institute and procedures and policies like this should not be OK'd by others without asking all members for a vote on the topic.
The communications committee who I know nothing of must inform all members, possibly on an information or technical forum of any changes that they wish to endorse.
As members we should all be informed of any change that affects or will affect any member before it is passed so that we can all each assess whether it is "good" or "a bad" idea. This could be done quite easily, and it would be fair because all votes could be viewed on the forum.
We are the members (and we pay for it), we are the body and soul of IOSH, I do not want to be governed by committees / groups / and by a few individuals that I know noting of other than a letter that pops through my door every year with vague information on person I can vote for.
Are these people brought out of a box each year, dusted down, brightened up and then put on display for all to vote for, when that is done you hear nothing more from them until the same time next year and then there may be even more different faces you know nothing about.
The board should be 50 / 50, it should have on it a mix of members, from those who have just gained their Gen. Cert. to fellows.
We all vote for candidates and I for one do not want any board member or chairman to be interested or putting forward ideas on how to devise more and more ways of obtaining cash from me or by making it difficult, arduous and expensive for any person to gain membership of the IOSH.
It just seems to me to be going the same way a private company or organisation would go.
anyway rant over, if it is not broken and has been working well for years why does it need to be changed (or fixed)?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese Salus
Not all members of this forum are members of IOSH. It may seem a minor point but if you are going to talk about democracy and use that principle as one of your main discussion points then you need to ensure you are being fully inclusive.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus Any member of IOSH should be eligible.
Any person who is not a member of IOSH would not. No if's or but's
If you want to make a contribution become a member, but do not make it difficult as I said before.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D. Hilton Merv, "A minimum of CMIOSH, preferably with CSP, is essential". CSP???? Why a Certified Safety Practitioner???
D
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese It seems to me this discussion has run its course. The original question was limited to a request for information about how the moderators for this forum were chosen.
The originator has widened this to a rant (his/her words) about IOSH.
It was not my intention to get involved in debate on the way IOSH is run and I not be contributing any further on this thread.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ruth Doyle Dear members, Perhaps I can clarify a few misunderstandings before this thread continues any further. IOSH as an organisation is managed with members at its very heart: every member can stand for, and vote for our Council of Management. Our Board of Trustees, and all the standing committees (such as Communications & International), are made up of volunteer members who are recruited through an open and advertised recruitment process. You will have seen regular items in the Interface pages of SHP and on this website advertising vacancies on our committees. And for information, our Board has both members (all grades) and non-members on it. All committees ultimately report to our elected Council. That way, the process aims to balance democratic involvement with the need to match the most suitable volunteer to the most suitable role. I would encourage all members to consider where they can volunteer: as elected Council members; recruited Trustees or standing committee members; or on the committees of our specialist groups and Branches. There are other ways you can volunteer too: by joining our tester panel, becoming a media spokesperson, or joining the moderating team. (Please see http://www.iosh.co.uk/volunteer for more info) The recruitment process for the moderators was discussed in depth and agreed by volunteer members (recruited) on the Communications & International Committee. Some of you noted that the most important attributes for a moderator are soft skills: diplomacy; tact; discretion; wisdom; and clearly a very thick skin! The committee also felt that a reasonably high level of technical knowledge would be helpful, since a lot of the discussions on this forum are on technical matters. The committee want to hear constructive suggestions from forum users, so please send them to me, and I will make sure they are included in their discussions. As Angela says above, they will be reviewing the process after the first recruitment phase has completed. We recently reviewed and updated the forums, the Acceptable Use Guidelines, and introduced this recruitment process, as a direct result of feedback from forum users - so your views really do count. Thank you all for you input - clearly you're among the 10,000 members per month that visit and value our forums. And we all know that they would be a lot less successful without the tough job that the moderators and observers continue to do every day, voluntarily. Ruth Doyle IOSH Director of Communications
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus Thank you Ruth you say you want to encourage all members to,
(now comes the bit I am not happy with because some members cannot even "consider" volunteering)
"consider" volunteering, but those that are outside the criteria have no chance of achieving that wish.
Thank you for pointing out it was us (all IOSH members), well not me because I knew nothing about it (did any other member?), from replies to the forum that led to the elected "eligible" members of the comm. comm. agreeing on this recruitment process.
I will be contacting Ruth to let her know that I think this recruitment process is unfair and want all grades of membership to be able to stand for inclusion to any committee.
And I would encourage those that feel the same (or have other ideas) to do the same.
I suppose it's a bit like H & S really , you have got to keep picking away at the coal face little by little to make any impression.
Regards, S
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.