Should we have a need to select among applicants for reason of too many applications for limited space, we need to have some criteria.

I don't know how we might rank these in importance, but here are some ideas:

• Exhibit/exhibitor as representing Twin Cities Maker specifically
• Exhibit/exhibitor as representing the Twin Cities maker and arts community
• Exhibit/exhibitor as representing the essence of maker activity
• Exhibit/exhibitor as representing a potential long-term benefit or relationship with Twin Cities Maker
• Exhibit/exhibitor as representing a potential long-term benefit or relationship with the Twin Cities maker and arts communities
• Exhibit/exhibitor as having shown previous involvement with and support of Twin Cities Maker
• Exhibit/exhibitor as a draw factor for the Minne-Faire
• Preference for Twin Cities Maker dues-paying members
• Perceived "level" of benefit for Twin Cities Maker (i.e., a sponsorship offer of high value)
• Subjective "coolness factor," ability to drive excitement at the Minne-Faire and beyond
• Safety of proposed exhibit

I think we cross that bridge when we come to it. Odds are we'll need to cull a few, but I suspect we can make it all work out.

-posted via Tapatalk on my G2 running Cyanogenmod 6.1.1.
pardon the brevity and bonus typos

I think it would be very easy to get overly-formal about the selection process. Even though it's wise to have a plan of action should we need to select from too many applicants, the creation of many rules results in much rules-lawyering.

I'd rather keep it very simple:

• Bad-ass always wins - the neatest stuff, of the most value to the attendees should always win.
• In the event we can't decide between equally bad-ass projects, we should consider membership status of the exhibtor and overall value (again, to the attendees) provided, but this should be entirely subjective to the jury members, not based on some RPG-esque rule system.

As long as we are up-front that the jury selection process is entirely subjective, this should be OK.

I also think we should aim for consensus on admission/selection, but allow the chair to call a vote when needed so we can move on if we can't reach consensus.

Thoughts?

yup