7
$\begingroup$

Summary: Quantum Computing Stack Exchange will begin the nomination stage for an election on March 12th, 2024, as your “graduation” election.

The timeline:

  • On March 5th, 2024, I'll post a question collection post on Meta, so that the community can post questions they'd like to see the candidates answer.

  • Starting on March 12th, users can nominate themselves. The top questions collected on the previous week will be compiled into a questionnaire on the election page, so that potential moderators can answer them.

  • The existing moderator team will need to run in the election if they wish to keep their positions.

  • On March 19th, if there are 4 or more candidates, the election will move into the voting phase. If not, I'll extend the nomination period for a week. If, at the end of that extension period, there are still fewer than 4 candidates, I'll simply appoint the candidates who've nominated (and aren't already pro-tem mods), and we'll default to considering this a "pro-tem election" just to try to bring the total number of moderators on the site up to 3 (for full details of the process, see the announcement on Meta Stack Exchange). (There's a small chance we'll need to remove a nomination.)

  • If the election moves into the voting phase, I'll announce the results on Meta on March 27th (or April 3rd, if we need to extend the nomination period).

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

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ No one asked the community whether or not this would be an appropriate time to have an election. Perhaps you asked the diamond moderator team, but they didn't ask the rest of the community. $\endgroup$ Feb 27 at 23:36
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @user1271772 it is an appropriate time because it was announced non-pro-term elections were going to happen ever since graduation, and we certainly waited long enough. Plus we're obviously understaffed right now which makes it even more due time. Hence why we've been asking CMs to run elections ASAP. $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Feb 28 at 6:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ thanks a lot for managing this @SpencerG. Let me take the chance to encourage everyone eligible reading this to seriously consider stepping up. It would also be great to have someone in the mod team who more closely follows programming-like questions. $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Feb 28 at 6:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, or in Quantum Computing Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. $\endgroup$
    – Mithrandir24601 Mod
    Mar 19 at 10:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Considering this comment chain is largely noise I got stressed trying to read, I'm moving it to chat. The mods felt this was an appropriate time for an election, therefore it was an appropriate time. There are only two mods (and I can't say I'm particularly active, no), therefore an election is needed ASAP. If you don't like it, I'm not asking you to, but there are enough users on here that 'there is no perfect time', so we have to make do with something that works $\endgroup$
    – Mithrandir24601 Mod
    Mar 19 at 10:34

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

So if three or fewer people nominate themselves for moderator, then they will be automatically appointed moderator at the end of the election period (assuming their nomination is not removed for some past transgression).

  • Is it an absolute requirement that this site has three moderators?

  • If so, what options do community members have if they are against a specific nominee but are not interested in serving as a moderator themself?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Usually elections get postponed when there's not enough candidates, so I'm also concerned about the idea of "appointments". $\endgroup$ Mar 10 at 20:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd guess common sense would be applied to decide what's best to do in case of a truly problematic outcome, but hopefully, that won't happen. That aside, as a personal comment: to some degree this issue is inevitable. If nobody wants to step up and do it, someone else you might not want there just might. It's especially important on small communities like these to participate to some degree in managing the site. Or at least, you can't really complain if you don't and someone else ends up making choices you disagree with (I'm making a general point of course, not talking specifically about you) $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Mar 12 at 9:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ regardless, let me say that being a mod here is not that big of a burden. By far the most annoying aspect of it (for me at least) is having to moderate discussions taking a toxic derivative. That aside, most other things don't take too much time all considered. The main reason I think it's best to have 3 people is to allow more internal discussion and have more weight behind choices taken. In other words, imo it's best to share the responsibility of making decisions with more people. $\endgroup$
    – glS Mod
    Mar 12 at 9:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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