Your response seems vaguely like it's asking for a flame, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks. Not a flame.

Your process for staff development is not good.
... I can see a large number of people join the staff and quickly fail. I don't need intuitive knowledge from my experience as an imm, I have statistical evidence of a low success rate.

In my mind, low success rate != process not being good. Not necessarily. Now, I don't know either way in this case, but I do know there can be other factors leading to the perceived success or failure of a project than process. Perhaps it really is more difficult than people think prior to imming? Maybe it is tough to screen folks you found off the internet who play a digital version of D&D? Maybe it isn't as fun as people thought and they'd rather just play instead? Or, like you imply, maybe their process really does suck. I was just wondering how you came to that conclusion.

>I could be completely wrong in any of my own assumptions, but
>I would guess that making this CF thing like more like a
>"professional project" for the folks who work on it would
>probably sink it quicker than any thing else.

Not sure what to make of this... I think orginization will make any project more enjoyable. We can have a requirement that everyone work on an area pretty much by themselves for a period of multiple months, but we can't expect them to work on a team? I'm not sure I get what your saying.

If it were me, I wouldn't want to donate my time for free toward something that felt like work. Ugh.

I suppose what I'm trying to say all boils down to, why would you assume that CF should be run similar to any sort of profit-based organization? Don't they all donate their time for this thing?