View source for Brazil Program/Community Hiring Process

===Suggestions for improvement===
;'''1. Determine from the outset to incorporate the community in interviewing'''
Though WMF worked with the community in scoping the position and the timing of the position announcement, the idea of having the community integrated into the interviewing process did not happen until after the position was posted and WMBR approached WMF. The process worked fine, but the conversations on transparency and community involvement ideally should have occurred *before* the position was posted.

;'''2. Construct a more structured assessment page'''
The first reviewers structured the assessment page by Reviewer name followed by their brief assessment of the individual candidates. Most organized their reviews in descending order. What could perhaps be more valuable is creating a review table, which could be filled in by supporting points and examples by community members, rather than having point-by-point assessments. If individual and more elaborate reviews are desired, these could be placed on the talk page, with the ultimate agreed upon outcome being the assessment table filled in on the main page.

It would be also important that the above mentioned review table contained criteria previously agreed by community members, WMF, and any other relevant party (e.g., CIS in India) is shared openly in order to guide the reviews. There could be a collumn for open comments, avoiding that each volunteer had different criteria in mind when evaluating. The candidates should also be well aware of what this criteria is as well, so they know how to best expend their limited time.

;'''3. Crystalize the community consensus on candidates'''
As per the above, no consensus was reached by the community about which candidates were "the best." Rather, there was a list of community member's comments per candidate. This is more similar to a voting process, as opposed to a consensus process. The community is an essential advisor to the ultimate decision by WMF, and it is important for them to have a collective voice. The volunteers assigned to relay the community's thoughts should help clarify within the community what the overall consensus is, and also hold individual community members to the criteria that are listed. This would ensure the community felt their input is heard by WMF in an effective way.

;'''4. Recruitment announcements'''
One of the areas of disconnect with the Executive Search firm is from which networks we should recruit. Though we got the word out through our own networks, it would be better to prioritize from the onset the job positions among fields directly related to free culture, free software and NGOs fields. In Brazil, the company hired for recruitment was not very much in to these fields world.

;'''5. Communication about full process for the candidates'''
It might be useful to inform candidates from the beginning that the final candidate will be required to go to San Francisco (if it will really be necessary). In Brazil, some candidates were desperately getting the American visa in the last minute.

;'''6. Online task format'''
In the Brazil assignment, the candidates had to expound upon a few open points of contention. It would be interesting to test other modes of candidate interaction with the community, like hosting an FAQ, composing a thought-piece and responding to feedback, or perhaps reviewing a project proposal. A problem with the brazil pilot is that community members started asking additional questions to the original assignment, which made it difficult for candidates to focus on what they were originally tasked in doing.