Add Volunteer Vacancies to the Join Page

[EllaHughesPAUSE]

Can we either

• add the volunteer vacancies to the join page
• have the volunteer vacancies, teams and national groups pages linked as part of the - Thank you for signing up part of the join form

Can we also link volunteer vacancies on our normal vacancies page

Anthony to update the software role in same style as the others for clarity

[Pato-desu]

i think it makes sense to move our volunteer vacancies to our Join page. i'll do it and wait for approval

Can we also link volunteer vacancies on our normal vacancies page

that's already the case

[seankessinger]

add the volunteer vacancies to the join page

Current shortest paths to /volunteer-vacancies:

Via footer (2 clicks):

1. Any page → Footer → "Vacancies"
2. /vacancies → "volunteer vacancies" link

Via main nav (3 clicks):

1. Homepage → "Action" nav link
2. /action → "vacancies" link (in Support PauseAI section)
3. /vacancies → "volunteer vacancies" link

Intuitive path from Join page (4 clicks):
A new visitor wanting to volunteer would likely:

1. Click "Join" button → /join
2. See "check out our list of [actions]" → /action
3. See "Look over our [vacancies]" → /vacancies
4. See "volunteer vacancies [here]" → /volunteer-vacancies

[Wituareard]

"Thank you" page makes more sense to me, we probably shouldn't distract from joining except for offering the newsletter as a lower-effort alternative for impatient people

[Pato-desu]

Mayybe. I also think looking at the potential roles you could fill could inspire people to join too. It would reduce joiners a bit but increase important joins (the ones who want to fill the roles).

[EllaHughesPAUSE]

Could they appear on join page if you click more than X hours in the drop down?

[Pato-desu]

No, there's not a way to do that

[Pato-desu]

Mayybe. I also think looking at the potential roles you could fill could inspire people to join too. It would reduce joiners a bit but increase important joins (the ones who want to fill the roles). @Wituareard don't you think it seems net positive?
Let me know so I can continue on merging (and resolving conflicts) or not.

[Wituareard]

The ones who can fill remote roles aren't necessarily the most important joins, getting numbers on the ground locally is important as well so I think I'd vote no but idk if my judgement is that relevant

[Pato-desu]

I think your judgment is relevant. But I disagree.

1. I think that having more people in Global is more important at the moment, but of course, that has diminishing returns and becomes less valuable than people in local groups with more numbers.
2. Also, most joiners are not even joining local groups, so assuming there is a trade, it's probably pretty small.

[Maximophone]

I want to point out a meta point that I don't think this is the right place for having this kind of conversation. Ideally this should be a decision taken by the communication team and executed here (with a possibility to voice concerns of course, but it's very important to separate strategy/decision from execution if we are to move fast).

On that specific decision, it's very hard to know the correct choice with our (or my?) limited information. How many people fill in this form, and amongst them how many are joining remote vs local branches, what is the skills distribution, etc.
My experience with Pause AI France is that almost no-one joined via the Pause AI Global form, so I would tend to agree with 2.

Let's move forward with the vacancies on the join page, and we will see how it impacts the sign ups short term.