Add process for reviewing applicants to mentor guide

docs/source/mentors/application-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+# Reviewing Applicants
+
+This guide walks through the process of reviewing Outreachy final applications
+and selecting an intern after the contribution period has closed.
+
+## How to review applications
+
+```{tip}
+You can make a copy of
+[this Google Sheet template](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vQkN6J5-kPWv-cvNL06PujIxq2m5DbN-kbHd9tR3e3s/edit?usp=sharing)
+to track the review process more easily
+```
+
+### Triaging process
+
+If the projects in a given round have received a lot of contributions, it may be
+required to triage them to generate a shortlist of applicants to review more
+in-depth. A decision to triage may be made because, for example, a few applicants
+are flooding the project(s) with a high number of low quality contributions.
+The decision to begin triaging can also be made before the official end of the
+contribution period and deadline for submitting final applications.
+
+### Review process
+
+Each applicant should be assigned two reviewers (mentors) who will rate the
+contributions and final application content based on Outreachy's system
+("1 - Struggling" to "5 - Amazing"). Each mentor most likely feels most
+comfortable reviewing the applications for the projects they are mentoring for.
+We should be mindful of that but also try to distribute the reviewing work as
+evenly as possible across the mentors, especially if one project receives a lot
+more applications than another. A good starting point is to assign each mentor to
+review applications to their own projects as Reviewer #1, then assign them to an
+application for a different project as Reviewer #2, then tweak the numbers from
+there. **Each mentor has the right to ask to be reassigned from an application
+they do not feel able to review.**
+
+Mentors should try to keep their review notes private from each other so as not
+to bias one another before the final selection meeting when applicants are
+discussed.
+
+In addition to the rating according to Outreachy's system referenced above,
+each mentor may also want to rank the candidates. For example, rank their top
+candidate as number 1, their next candidate as 2, and so on. This is completely
+_optional_ but may help when discussing and comparing ratings with the other
+mentors.
+
+### Final selection meeting
+
+Once the mentors have reviewed and rated all their assigned applications, a
+meeting should be held to discuss the applicants and decide ultimately which
+applicants will be invited to intern on each project.
+
+The outcome of this meeting should be each mentor selecting an intern for their
+project by clicking the "Mentor this intern" button on the Outreachy platform.
+The ratings assigned during the review should also be entered into the platform
+as well, even for those applicants that were not selected, as this informs
+Outreachy regarding their demographics.
+
+```{note}
+If there are large disparaties in rating for an applicant from different mentors
+try to resolve this disparity before entering the rating on the platform.
+```
+
+## Guidelines for reviewing applications
+
+We should adhere very closely to Outreachy's guidelines for
+[evaluating applications](https://www.outreachy.org/docs/applicant/#contribution-evaluation).

docs/source/mentors/index.md

@@ -1 +1,9 @@
 # Mentor Guide
+
+This guide contains information for a JupyterHub member to participate as a
+mentor during an Outreachy round.
+
+```{toctree}
+:maxdepth: 2
+application-review
+```