This is one of those cases when someone (me) tries to type something as clear as possible, and, despite of that, somehow it's misunderstood.
I appreciate Under The Moon efforts to try to understand my post, and wondering if I was talking about developers instead of game masters. In any case, I think I did not mention developers in my post, and if someone tries to switch every GM reference for developer word in my text, I think that the post becomes (even more?) confusing.
While the thread purpose is answered right since the first reply, there have been other replies later on, I gave answer to Under The Moon one, and I feel I still have to give one to Suno_Regin and Pestilence, this will be done, though in my answer to the first reply, which is the one that really addresses the topic.
We never just brush someone off with a "No."
I'm curious as to what prompted this thread.
When you ask what prompted this thread, I thought of two possibilities. What lead me to write this in the first place, and what lead me to put it on the forums instead of using the Private Message system to know about this.
The reason I wrote this, is because while talking about various topics with someone, at a moment the talk lead to how people wants to be a GM and they're rejected. I've never started any process to be a GM (in reply to Suno_Regin) nor developer for that matter, so I don't know first hand how those processes are. Then again, said person I was talking to, deserves enough trust to me as to believe in what was being said. The impression I got was that the candidates where "brushed with a No" instead of giving them a reason about their rejection. Since it seemed obvious to me that this was not the correct way to handle those applications, I made the thread. I'm happy to say that I must have misunderstood the conversation at some point, since it's been stated that the process is handled in the correct way. It really could not be otherwise.
Answering my second question, I'll say that I posted this publicly, instead of dealing this with PM, because it was not a thing affecting me directly, and because if I had this impression, nothing tells me that others might have not had the same (false) impression, and thus, the topic needed to be addressed publicly, so a public reply was given, and everyone had this reference at hand, as to know that the rejected ones are given the reasons of their non-acceptance. In reply to Pestilence, the fact that there was a thread where this was already commented, comes to state that there was confusion about this before (I really haven't searched for that thread, so I don't know if it talks about the exact same thing I'm talking here, if that's the case, sorry for this thread)
As a final note, even if it was not the purpose of this thread, I feel that, same as in GM application, if someone applies to the developer team, process that I think it's done with mails and a portfolio of the work done, etc. In cases when such petitions aren't considered spam, the candidate should recieve if even a premade e-mail, so at least he/she knows that it was analyzed. Something such as:
"After reviewing your referenced portfolio, the team feels you don't meet the required conditions as to join the developers."
