Hey Momoko, This might be better to tackle seperately in a 1-on-1 thread but I think what I'm hearing is that the unclear criteria set it up so that current folks making decisions about new core volunteers are in a position to "judge" incoming members which might dissuade new members. I think that's accurate, but to some extent, we're all judging and being judged all the time (it's not necessarily a bad thing). I think having the criteria be vague and numinous is what makes any process of judgement/evaluation tip towards the unfair/exclusionary.
So, what I recommend you all try to do is spend time outlining these a little bit: "Your behaviour in the shop off hours will appropriately represent Bike Farm."
laundry list, even coming up with 'values' level words (ethical, honest, kind etc) will help people understand what is and is not acceptable. A Bike Farm code of ethics would go a long way towards laying this out (those are usually 1 page or less!)
"You have the skills to handle the strange situations that come up at Bike Farm."
Prevention? Hands off teaching?
about/can recommend for folks to learn/practice if they are interested?
skill level with those things and support them in their development/growth?
I really think reframing this similarly to the questions of mechanic skills-- and how to evaluate who has and doesn't have them, and how to handle that-- bike co-ops are teaching people all kinds of mechanics all the time, usually in this really awesome, incredibly calm and welcoming non-judgmental kind of way. That's not just haphazard! That's systematized, cultural, and it's usually intentional, and you can apply that kind of teaching philosophy to anything your org/group thinks it's important for people to know.
Those questions might seem vague, hard, or weird to answer, but I really think it will make things a lot more accessible and transparent, which in the long run, will make your processes more equitable.
thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org