.
Nope, you’re good. When we need you, we’ll make it as quick and easy for you as possible.
I don’t think any of this is super urgent, whenever you have time for it.
2 Likes
Seems like you may have stronger opinions than you can really warrant.
I realized this morning we never specified a process for mod re-election, whether they need another full RFC, or what. I propose that mod re-elections can go direct to binding vote.
Mod re-elections
- Should go through a full RFC process with votes and timings as ratified
- May go direct to binding vote (people may still voice objections and make their cases in the vote thread)
- Something else (please specify)
0 voters
OK, draft text:
New moderators begin with a Request for Comments (RFC) thread in About Unstuck. These may be started by anyone to nominate themselves or someone else. These follow the ratified process for RFCs, including the timings and votes prior to going be fore the community for a binding vote, which must meet a 2/3 threshold to appoint the poster as moderator. Moderators serve terms of six months unless they wish to resign earlier.
If a moderator wishes to be re-elected to another term, then within the last month of their term, they may start a re-election thread containing a yes or no poll that shall remain open for at least one week in About Unstuck, and they shall solicit an admin to make a banner about it. This is in lieu of going through the full RFC process again, although users may naturally state their cases for or against re-election in this thread. The moderator is or is not re-elected according to the same 2/3 threshold.
There are no limits on the number of terms a moderator may serve or on the concurrent number of moderators.
Feel free to offer up any edits, and outside of any major objections or changes, we’ll put this up to a thread vote in a couple days or so.
A major goal of the RFC process was to avoid badgering the larger, less-interested-in-the-sausage-making part of the community with binding votes on each line item. I think it’s our responsibility to come up with a proposal that’s complete, or at least nearly so, for up-or-down ratification.
I’m not sure there’s any such thing as a perfect poll to try to solicit community input, as supplying enough options so as to not be pushing a specific loaded agenda is at odds with settling on a clear consensus, but the purpose of the polls early in an RFC is to find what is broadly acceptable, not necessarily to hit 50%+1. We don’t necessarily need bottomless polls if we can read the room, and we’re already seeing considerably fewer voters in polls this deep in the thread. Unlimited mods has been consistently favored over a set number (which I find pretty surprising, but that’s why we do this process), and a requirement that someone other than the proposed mod do the nomination has never garnered any real support. People still have time to voice objections to the text, but at this point, I think the appetite for more granularity isn’t very large.
You are free to start an in-thread poll on whether there should be separate community votes for each. If you can convince enough people, then your perspective will win out.
Maybe this is what you are saying, but you should feel free to have a poll in this thread with several “bundle options” competing against each other. Doing so, of course, would allow people to express their preferences over combos which might not be so easily reflected over separate independent polls.
Another straw poll of this type would probably not hurt at this point. Although, as pointed out above, the number of votes cast will likely be fairly low at this point.
1 Like
Without any additional input, @jmakin, would you do us the honor of setting up a yes/no poll for the approval of the text in the post I’m replying to?
in its own thread?
Here. We need to approve the text, and then we’ll bug you again for the forum-wide vote.
The argument against is that you didn’t do it, and no one else apparently wanted to.
There’s no time limit, but neither is there a prohibition on me advancing the proposal to the up and down vote. As to how to do it, it was stated for you:
I feel is an unnecessary extra vote when we can just bake it into the main proposal.
It doesn’t matter who starts it. Since it matters to you the most, you do it so you can control the wording.
From the way this thread is going, either you do it or no one will do it, which can be taken as a sign that maybe your POV won’t win a poll. It’s up to you if you want to put that to a test vote.
Fidget,
The process has already become too burdensome for the average user to seriously participate. Adding more to it isn’t helping anything.
I suspect most people on this site don’t understand the need for any of this when a bit of adulting should have resolved it.
Most people don’t want to get sucked into this drama vortex.
I am pretty much going to vote against anything that makes any of this more complicated and convuluted than absolutely necessary. Which means almost everything.
1 Like