July moderator elections - new format

[Sam Hull]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

[Steve B]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I think that requiring at least 50 posts may be a bit harsh. Also the "exceptions" are unclear. Can we include someone "on request"? I would prefer exact rules. I propose to require 20 posts + membership already before 01-Jan-2010. This would allow 50% of the current members to vote, according to the following statistics that I made from the current member list:

Code: Select all

    # posts  # members
          0        217
    1-   19        260
   20-   49        106 (12 of them joined in 2010)
   50-  499        277
  500-  999         56
 1000-19999         64
      total        980

while drawing the line below 50 would only allow roughly 40% of all members and would drop a lot of long-term but rarely posting members. I think we should include them all, not "per request".

Another point, without teams we had the nomination + acceptance process, would there be anything to replace that with the team approach? Or will it be the same just with N names together instead of one (and each single team member to accept)?

Sven

whatever works for the voting requirements is OK with me
the issue is to insure the integrity of the vote as there appears to be a cloud on it
the TCADMIN can answer this better then i can
as to nominations..
Sam has already mentioned there will be no nominating process for team elections..
this makes perfect sense
teams will be formulated and they will announce themselves to the TCADMIN
of course all team members will be identified one by one and they will prepare a candidate's statement
as to the special cases..
this is not a big deal as i imagine there are very few of these
i think there was someone who wondered if he could vote given he was a long time member but not a poster that often
i have no problem with special cases having their own thread here to request voting privileges for total transparency

Steve

[gerold]

i would vote for 6 month period for Mods to serve.
This time two jumped ship and left the job to
Graham which would be hard on anyone.

Best,
Gerold.

[Steve B]

i would vote for 6 month period for Mods to serve.
This time two jumped ship and left the job to
Graham which would be hard on anyone.

Best,
Gerold.

Graham will offer his candidacy on a team of of like-mined moderators
as will all other teams
so i doubt there will be friction and any reasons to vacate ones post
however it seems 6 months is becoming the consensus
Steve

[bob]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

[Harvey Williamson]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

Shame we can't do that with Governments

[Steve B]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

Works for me
sort of reminds me of Former Mayor Koch here in NYC
he was Mayor here for something like 12 years
very few months or so he would go on TV and Radio and ask..
HEY...How'm I Doing?

Regards
Steve

[bob]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

Shame we can't do that with Governments

You can in some cases. Many states have a "recall" provision where voters can create a petition, get it signed by enough people, and then hold a recall election to remove someone from office. Unfortunately, not the president of the US...

[bob]

i would vote for 6 month period for Mods to serve.
This time two jumped ship and left the job to
Graham which would be hard on anyone.

Best,
Gerold.

We call that "hoist on his own petard."

[Harvey Williamson]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

Shame we can't do that with Governments

You can in some cases. Many states have a "recall" provision where voters can create a petition, get it signed by enough people, and then hold a recall election to remove someone from office. Unfortunately, not the president of the US...

They are proposing something similar here to remove an individual member of Parliament.