2

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 on no 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.

| |
6

As far as I understand, this will not impact us significantly. The existing moderators, Pat Ludwig, Cascabel, and I, were asked about the current state of moderation on the site, and we all said that we did not want to step down and that we do not need more moderators. Because of that, it is my understanding that elections will not be held at all.

More generally, my understanding is that this new election procedure is being put in place to help moderate beta sites, but it will not actually impact how or when those sites graduate.

| |
  • I see. I think that you and the other mods are really good. But we also know that we have been seeking to leave beta for a while, so perhaps there is a point in the middle that could fit our needs. – DarkCygnus Aug 21 '18 at 20:53
  • So, you think this is more oriented towards moderating Beta sites (which IMHO is already done here), and less about the graduation part, is that right? – DarkCygnus Aug 21 '18 at 21:02
  • 2
    Right. I don't believe that this is related to graduation, except that it makes the procedure for choosing moderators for beta sites more similar to the procedure for graduated sites. – murgatroid99 Aug 21 '18 at 21:34
  • 2
    @DarkCygnus Elections are a thing that always was part of graduation. For some sites, they were one of the more important aspects of graduation, so this is a change to allow them to get what they wanted more easily, without waiting for full graduation. But since it's not connected to any of the other original parts of graduation, if it's not what B&CG wanted out of graduation, then it doesn't mean much. – Cascabel Aug 22 '18 at 21:54
  • @Cascabel I see. Seems that it's more about the elections than getting out of Beta, contrary to what I though and what it seemed to be. Thanks for the discussion :) – DarkCygnus Aug 24 '18 at 23:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .