Just today I stumbled upon this post: Experimenting with Pro Tempore elections, which seems to be a chance to the ever-lasting situation of still being "beta", and all the pros (and cons?) of "graduating".
Extracting parts from it, emphasis mine (still I suggest you read it):
Last spring, I ran an election on Parenting for a new moderator pro tempore. It went pretty well, so this fall we are going to extend the program to sites that have been in "beta" for years. [...]
We're reaching out to moderator teams to see if they would be interested in participating. Priority will go to sites with the longest history or that we've identified as having an urgent need. If you are a moderator who would like to nominate your site for an election, feel free to reach out to me. The ultimate goal is to have elections for all sites. [...]
Current moderators will not be required to nominate themselves—they will continue as moderators unless they ask to step down. [...]
The long-term goal here is to increase democratic participation in all of our sites, break down the barriers between beta and graduated sites and eliminate one community manager task. [...]
So, with this in mind, and regarding the other things mentioned in that post, I would like to ask you what do you think about this? What pros and cons can you think of asking to be considered?
Edit: Seems that Jon clarified in a comment that:
Yes. On graduation, all moderators must stand for re-election if they wish to continue in the role. There will be
onno difference between moderators who ran for an election during beta and moderates we appoint
This changes things a bit. As I get it now, after the new pro-temp mods come about, and the site "graduates", then all mods will have to be re-elected. This makes sense because it will enable users to get a feel on each mod before "officially" (re) electing them.
