My vote on rule 2 is for sale
ok thanks spidercrab and MrWookie, didn’t realize we voted on each mod every 6 months.
No worries. The only thing really in question here is if volunteer mods are obligated to take a 2 month break between terms, or if they can just be re-elected. Rule 1 is something we should have already been doing but that no one had bothered. Codifying it so everyone remembers is a good idea.
If the principle has been adopted that mods should only be serving a maximum of 6 months (ish) surely the present incumbents, having already served far in excess of that, should step down (following ratification of that principle) for a minimum of two months?
4 Likes
If that is what you wanted the rule to require, then you should have brought that up in the RFC process. It’s too late to add that requirement now. The rule as written seems pretty clear that the two month break applies after a mod’s 6-month term is up. (note it says - “any moderator who has served in their current term for at least 6 months” not “any moderators who has served for at least 6 months”). Thus, when Wookie’s current 6-month term is up, he would be required to take a 2-month break
Current mods with more than six months’ service rotating out in the near future appears to have been the common understanding:
6 Likes
It’s a clarification of, not an addition to the requirement.
But we agree that it states “any moderator who has served in their current term for at least 6 months”. wookie’s current term clearly began when he was voted in as a mod more than 6 months ago.
2 Likes
This seems academic. Don’t the current mod terms run out at almost exactly the same time as this rule vote? I am assuming that if this vote passed, there’s not going to be a 2/3 majority to reappoint an existing mod anyways.
1 Like
Right. Pretty sure the point he was making was that his current six month term is almost up, and with the current proposed rule, when it’s up he’ll take his vacation.
1 Like
Then as far as I can tell, we agree?
1 Like
Yes. I just don’t see why we should add to the rule that wookie must step down immediately. No reason to make this vote more personal and aimed at one mod than it already is.
3 Likes
Oh sure, as long as the interpretation of the rule is clear there’s no need to make it personal.
5 Likes
Point of clarification: are we talking sidereal or synodic months?
1 Like
To be clear, as written Wookie and skydiver would step down from current terms on September 1, 2021, and be eligible to volunteer again with the term that starts 11/1/21. The recently appointed mods would end up serving roughly 7 1/2 month terms concluding March 1, 2022. The 9/1/21 date was included in the proposal wording so there wouldn’t be questions around this.
2 Likes
Rule 1 is a slam dunk obvious pass. Rule 2, I thought was good while I was helping create it. I have some misgivings about it though as it was created around the idea that everyone truly wants this forum to be successful. I have my doubts that this is actually still the case.
If rule 2 passes, I believe the next thing that must be done is to create a clear set of community guidelines and standards for the forum. Whether this is done via RFC or some other process, it is clear to me that the majority of disagreement on this forum revolves around the fact that we do not see eye to eye at all on what standards we should try to uphold.
3 Likes
A simple cookbook.
My understanding is that when term limits have been instituted for political office, they generally have not been applied retroactively unless that is explicitly made clear.
If the political office was in a country where a civil war was raging they might act with more haste.
In times of crisis, like civil war, rules often get suspended and authorities often assume emergency powers.
Right. Like getting rid of people at the top who are provoking it.