Probably ponied, but there was a vote for me.
People have been thinking about these questions for a long time
Aristotle, Politics book 4, chapter 15
The 66% vote threshold doesn’t really imply anything about the numbers of mods. If the community decides the number of mods is fixed or semi fixed, then they would have to specify more about when mods are elected and who gets to run for open slots. If there is an unlimited number of mods, then any additional ones could be approved by 66% vote, although again the community may wish to specify some additional procedures for becoming a mod.
A few more pieces of food for thought:
Upthread jman asked about procedures for recalling mods, and someone suggested that just go through an RFC process every time. That seems impractical, because the process takes at least 17 days to go from proposal to ratification. So there needs to be some way to quickly demod someone if they start going crazy. I suspect admins would step in if things are egregious, but it probably also makes sense to codify a community based procedure that could be quick but also isn’t subject to abuse.
As a second thought, do we want to specify that all posters are eligible to be mods or do we want to have other requirements (e.g., account must be at least a certain age)?
Affirmative Action
- We should promote getting mods from diverse time zones
- We should promote getting mods from diverse countries
- We should promote getting mods from diverse identity groups
- We should promote some other kind of mod diversity (please specify)
- Nah, just pick reasonable mods whoever they may be
0 voters
As of some time tomorrow, we will have black letter law on the vote threshold for approving mods.
If we want to fix the number of mods at a certain number, it seems to me that it must be done consistent with the 66% rule. I have not read in this thread how we would do that.
Perhaps because I am not in favor of having a fixed number of mods, I think this needs to be spelled out in this thread and in the eventual “proposal” (if it becomes part of the proposal put to a binding vote).
1 Like
I think this is a good idea, and I think the earlier idea to at least temporarily suspend a mod by the mods is a good idea. Perhaps a unanimous approval of a majority of mods and admins would be sufficient (that is, no mod or admin detractors speaking against it, and a majority of all current mods and admins have spoken up that the suspension is a good idea).
It would seem to me that a vote on a fixed number of mods would be a forum rule subject to the 60% threshold, while it’s votes on particular mods that are subject to the 2/3.
Complaints about the past excised to the forum drama thread. The forum is better served by keeping this thread focused on a new mod selection process.
In five hours we can get the ball rolling on nominating chads, no?
So, looking to synthesize some community sentiment…
On the subject of the number of mods, there is no clear consensus, and there isn’t a good way to reconcile a fixed number of mods with anyone who volunteers and gets votes modding. We’ve had more people speaking on behalf of the latter. Would anyone like to state a case for the former?
On terms, there is substantial support for both six month and indefinite terms. On term limits, there is somewhat more support for no term limits over a limit of one term, but it no longer holds a clear lead as it did in past polling. Would people think that 6 month terms subject to indefinite reelections be an acceptable consensus? Would people find it satisfactory that we put text into the final proposal along the lines of “mods may seek reelection but are encouraged not to seek reelection when there are volunteers who would like to step up around the end of their term” or along those lines?
On election dates, there is overwhelming support for offset elections in one form or another rather than an election date for all mods. How this works depends heavily on the fixed number of mods vs. unlimited mods proposal.
When there are multiple people wanting to serve as mod, there seems to be little appetite for primary elections. It seems more that if we go with fixed mods, then all the volunteers work out among themselves who goes up for this vote, or if we don’t have a fixed number of mods, there is no need for this.
There isn’t much support for affirmative action in selecting mods.
So, in the case of unlimited mods, what sort of gatekeeping do people want:
With unlimited mods, how do they get nominated
- Anyone may start an RFC for any new mods, incl. for themselves or just that we need someone to be a new mod. It’s subject to a majority vote prior to going up to a banner community vote at a 2/3 threshold, as in the RFC process for making rules
- Anyone may make a thread for a mod vote directly at a 2/3 threshold, including for themselves. Admins should put it up for a banner community vote at earliest convenience
- Someone should make an RFC for a mod nominee, you shouldn’t nominate yourself.
- Someone should make a mod nominee thread directly, you shouldn’t do so yourself.
- Some other sort of gatekeeping (please elaborate)
0 voters
I’m in favor of indefinite terms subject to recall, but this would be an ok compromise to me. Term limits for volunteer moderators on a community message board seems really silly to me.
2 Likes
Do you see any merit to the idea that limited terms may encourage volunteers who’d sign up for a term but not a whole commitment?
If anything I think open ended terms where people could step down when it didn’t fit well anymore would be more flexible and appealing than fixed terms.
It also might get more people to try it confident that they can back out if it really doesn’t suit them.
People would still be free to resign if they decide they hate it 2 weeks in or whatever, but I think there are a reasonable number of people who both would not want to be mod for the rest of their lives and not want to be seen as quitters. By putting mod terms into bite size chunks no one has to feel like they’ve committed to more than one chunk, or at they don’t have to make it a point that they’re not, like micro chose to.
That’s a fair point. Put me down for fixed quittable terms without term limits then.
1 Like
If you could shift around any of your votes as necessary to match your current opinion, I’d appreciate it, so that we have an accurate picture of current community sentiment.
1 Like
Already done.
1 Like
Mods should feel comfortable stepping down whenever they feel like it.
I am against term limits and a set number of mods.
Nobody should feel trapped into being a mod. I understand that an open ended window may feel daunting to some, specific terms have their own issues.
One person should feel comfortable signing up and modding for three months while another does it for a year.
I’m not sure a well defined box of servitude is that much more appealing over supporting moderators setting their own parameters for donating their time to the community.