7
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

Summary: Quantum Computing Stack Exchange will begin the nomination stage for a special election on October 29 to replace one of the current moderators.

For full details of the process, see the announcement on Meta Stack Exchange. The timeline:

  • Between now and October 29, users can decide whether to nominate themselves. Users can also ask questions on meta for potential moderators to answer. (Use the and tags.)

  • During the nomination period, users may nominate themselves and answer any questions that might have been asked on meta.

  • On November 5, if there are two or more candidates, we'll run an election. If not, I'll simply appoint the candidate. (There's a small chance we'll need to remove a nomination, but I doubt that will come up.)

  • If there is an election, I'll announce the results on meta on November 13.

(Note for current moderators: there's no need to nominate yourself even though you'll likely get an email saying you should.)

If you have any questions about the process, please stick them in an answer here.

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Sanchayan Dutta Mar 4 at 16:55

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • $\begingroup$ If this is about replacing James Wootton, as he says it is in his answer, then why does it say "(Note for current moderators: there's no need to nominate yourself even though you'll likely get an email saying you should.)" I'm sure Mithrandir or Heather won't be being nominated to replace James Wootton right? $\endgroup$ – user1271772 Oct 22 '18 at 18:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user1271772 This is a technical thing. The system automatically informs all pro-tem mods about an election because in the past all mods were removed after graduation (normally first election) $\endgroup$ – MEE - Reinstate Monica Oct 22 '18 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ It seems obvious that "there's no need to nominate yourself" if you're already a moderator. $\endgroup$ – user1271772 Oct 22 '18 at 19:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Probably the email says something like IMPORTANT: If you want to stay a moderator, NOMINATE YOURSELF!!!!... $\endgroup$ – MEE - Reinstate Monica Oct 22 '18 at 19:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @MEE: Maybe with more exclamation points! But yes, this is a problem with our current implementation. $\endgroup$ – Jon Ericson Oct 22 '18 at 20:19
  • $\begingroup$ @JonEricson: I do not understand what MEE is saying. Why would someone have to nominate themselves? Are we replacing the current team, or are we just replacing ONLY james ?? $\endgroup$ – user1271772 Oct 22 '18 at 21:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user1271772: Well, traditionally the first election replaces all the existing moderators. But the way we're running pro tempore elections is a little different. We're adding one new moderators and James has asked to step down. Everything else will stay as is. In particular, the other two moderators won't be removed. $\endgroup$ – Jon Ericson Oct 22 '18 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ @JonEricson, so then why are we telling them "If you want to stay a moderator, NOMINATE YOURSELF" with even more exclamation points than MEE asked for? $\endgroup$ – user1271772 Oct 22 '18 at 22:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user1271772 - The pro tempore elections are new. The template still has verbiage related to when a site graduates, and all moderators are replaced. In that case, if they want to remain moderators, they do need to renominate themselves. As this is a brand new process, he is letting them know that they really don't need to renominate. The current election will replace James, add one moderator and Mith and Heather will remain. $\endgroup$ – JohnP Oct 22 '18 at 23:38
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I think it shouldn't be too hard for you to modify the email. $\endgroup$ – user1271772 Oct 23 '18 at 0:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JonEricson can/may we also write multiple questions in one post? Or would this be too broad? $\endgroup$ – MEE - Reinstate Monica Oct 24 '18 at 8:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MEE: It's up to you. I'd probably just write one post per question, however. $\endgroup$ – Jon Ericson Oct 24 '18 at 20:28
9
$\begingroup$

In case anyone is wondering, this election is to find a replacement for me. I recently started working for IBM Research, which means that there is a potential for a conflict of interest. This would just add potential for controversy to moderator decisions, which wouldn't be good for anyone.

I'll stay here to answer questions, of course. I'll especially be vigilant with anything under the Qiskit tag.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Congratulations to the new job! $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Oct 21 '18 at 11:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ just out of curiosity, why do you think there would have been a conflict of interest? $\endgroup$ – glS Oct 21 '18 at 18:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is no conflict of interest @James Wootton. Just don't do anything that is a conflict of interest. You're by far the best moderator we have and the only one really qualified in terms of having a PhD. The only other good candidate I can think of is gIS and he has said twice that he doesn't want to do it. Otherwise maybe Craig Gidney, but if an IBM employee can't be a moderator then why should a Google employee be allowed to? $\endgroup$ – user1271772 Oct 22 '18 at 17:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user121772 The other mods are great, whether they have a PhD or not. They are certainly more experienced at moderating. But thanks! $\endgroup$ – James Wootton Oct 23 '18 at 6:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @glS certain experiences during my time as a mod make me think that there could be complications given that I now work in the QC industry. But since I wouldn't want to discuss moderation history in detail, I can't really formulate those into a simple explanation. I'm sure that some people could pull it off without any issues, though. $\endgroup$ – James Wootton Oct 23 '18 at 20:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JamesWootton I see. That's fine, of course, I'm sure you had your reasons. Congrats on the new jobs! $\endgroup$ – glS Oct 24 '18 at 7:42
-6
$\begingroup$

On November 5, if there are two or more candidates, we'll run an election. If not, I'll simply appoint the candidate.

1 week might not be enough time.

Please don't rush things on our stack exchange.

Haste is waste.

There's not as many active users here as you might think. We might have 100 users with 200+ points, but many of them are not active at all. I monitor the stats very often, especially at Area51.

Not all users know about Meta. I was on StackOverflow for almost a decade and never knew what Meta was until maybe May 2018.

If we have plenty of nominations by November 5th, then fine, but if not, you're just going to appoint someone even though you know nothing about this stack exchange?

Slow it down a bit, it's a fairly inactive SE but we want to get it right. I'm worried that this whole process is going to happen too quickly and without enough discussion on how it should be done.

I sign into this stack exchange several dozen times per day and yet didn't even see this Meta post from 2 days ago.

Please calm down and let us discuss things as a community instead of dictating how a community completely detached from you will evolve.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There will be an inbox notification to all eligible users when the nomination period starts: "The Quantum Computing 2018 community moderator election is underway — nominations now being accepted." As long as users show up at some point during the nomination week, they'll have an opportunity to nominate themselves. (Part of the purpose of this announcement is to give a little extra time for people to see it in the sidebar.) $\endgroup$ – Jon Ericson Oct 22 '18 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ @JonEricson, thank you Jon I appreciate that, however this SE is MUCH less active than you might think. Except the top 7 users, people are NOT coming here very often. Users 8-15 (reputation wise) have had about ZERO reputation change in the last couple months. I would not expect for them to see the call for nominations within 2 weeks time. Maybe we'll get enough nominations and my fears will be unnecessary, but if we don't get enough nominations within a week, can we please allow more time? $\endgroup$ – user1271772 Oct 22 '18 at 18:42
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @user1271772 I'm sure the SE team knows how active this SE is. Also, people who don't show up here for two weeks in a row might not be the right candidates. Also, not sure it helps to call people out by name in your post. $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Oct 22 '18 at 19:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ We are still in the experimental stage on pro tempore elections. A few weeks ago we had a situation just like you describe where nobody nominated. I posted a call for more candidates and that did the trick. If we have to do that repeatedly, that's useful data and a good reason to change our process. But let's see what happens, shall we? ;-) $\endgroup$ – Jon Ericson Oct 22 '18 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ @JonEricson, I agree that we should see what happens and go from there. Your post did not mention this though, it just said there was a 1 week deadline and then you'd select someone if no one was nominated. Also, I'm a bit un-easy about how rushed things seems to be. You set all these dates yourselves without asking us for feedback. $\endgroup$ – user1271772 Oct 22 '18 at 21:15
  • $\begingroup$ I log in everyday but somehow I came to be aware of election today, I missed out nomination and primary. This is still a new community and I would suggest not electing the third moderator in hurry, please reconsider $\endgroup$ – Vikram Palakurthi Nov 5 '18 at 21:17

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