July moderator elections - new format

[Hood]

Time to show the example of the team.
What is your proposed team ?

[Harvey Williamson]

Time to show the example of the team.
What is your proposed team ?

I propose Milos, Norman and you.

[Mincho Georgiev]

Time to show the example of the team.
What is your proposed team ?

I propose Milos, Norman and you.

You forgot Rolf! How could you?!

[Harvey Williamson]

Time to show the example of the team.
What is your proposed team ?

I propose Milos, Norman and you.

You forgot Rolf! How could you?!

He will be the new TCAdmin

[Hood]

Time to show the example of the team.
What is your proposed team ?

I propose Milos, Norman and you.

Thanks. It is not bad company better then Harvey and...
I was afraid that you can be together with me.

[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

[michiguel]

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

[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

Maybe the team should be 4 people in a team 3 + a reserve. I do not think they should appoint a replacement that has no mandate.

[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

[Sven]

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