For example, an applicant could select a few articles and discussions that were recently posted, and write up a few brief thoughts on each one. I feel only someone who was serious about joining would go to such effort, and, potentially, community members could vote on submitted applications.
This is a really interesting idea. If we were to spike in popularity though, it would prove to be extremely labor intensive unless we could somehow automate it. It's also extremely subjective what does and what does not pass muster. I don't want the burden of that decision.
Hopefully only the quality of submissions would be considered, and not the opinions expressed therein. I personally envision anybody who submits an application with good grammar and a minimum amount of effort to be admitted, but you are right, it is subjective and I'm certain issues would arise. As for who would judge, I would be hesitant to appoint the site runners or certain users to judge applications. I just don't like the idea of a few people controlling the flow of new people in. I'd rather anybody be able to judge new applicants.
Good point. What I had in mind was not a group discussion on each member. Instead, and maybe this runs counter to Hubski's ideals, is each applicant would require a certain amount of approval votes to gain entrance, lets say 10 votes. There would be no disapprovals, just those 10 votes would be needed. And maybe these votes should be hidden from the public at large?
I love the thinking behind the idea, but the actual execution of it would prove very difficult imo. Also, it creates a sort of "moderator" vibe that I'm not too keen on. However, the thought that someone should be able to string a subject, verb and an object together prior to admittance is appealing.