2
$\begingroup$

Possible Duplicate:
Who should the moderators be?

The nine users who have 6+ votes on Who should the moderators be? are:

  • Suresh -accepted
  • Shane - accepted
  • Joshua - declined
  • András - declined
  • Noam
  • David - accepted
  • Ryan - accepted
  • Anand - accepted
  • Jukka

It would be great if the others accepted or declined, but we can make a slate from that list:

  1. Suresh
  2. Shane
  3. Ryan
$\endgroup$
17
  • $\begingroup$ Just as a note: Robert will make assignments by taking this ranking/list into account, although he will likely use his own judgement to some extent (based on how active the person has been in prior SE communities, whether they proposed the site, etc.). $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Aug 30 '10 at 12:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One other note: I believe that we just need four moderators, not five... $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Aug 30 '10 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Shane: Where is that said? Tex.SX has five. But then, math.SX has four... I didn't find the number in the "Moderator Pro Tempore" post. Well, anyway, I'm changing the title. $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Charles It is in there: "about three per site" $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ That said, I think would love to see more people on the moderator thread either accepting or rejecting the proposal. Also, feel free to nominate others! $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Aug 30 '10 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ I think we'd be fine with a few moderators. After all, it's not like all the other active meta folks will pick up their toys and go home ! And this list is temporary anyway. I'm seeing more people show up on meta the more we link to meta issues (and the FAQ will help even more) $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ So @Suresh, @Shane, and Ryan would be a slate? That sounds just fine. $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 17:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm hoping Andras and Jukka also get more votes before the final decision gets made :) $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh: Me too. $\endgroup$
    – Shane
    Aug 30 '10 at 17:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh, @Shane - Neither András nor Jukka have accepted their nominations. $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ Looks like a good set of initial moderators! $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, good choices, looks good (and fortunately I don't need to accept anything ;). $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ Suresh, Shane and Ryan should make an excellent initial slate! I'd also observe that Charles and Jukka have been much more active in meta than I have should we require a fourth. $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 19:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Charles Stewart: Each answer suggests a member who may be intersted, comments to discuss their pros/cons, and a vote of support/disapproval. Is there a question in this thread to discuss something else? Maybe I am misunderstanding the intention. Beside, the pro tem program is a really lightweight process to appoint a few members to act as moderators for a few weeks until you can have elections. No need to draw it out into multiple rounds. $\endgroup$ Aug 30 '10 at 23:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Robert: This qn has summarised the current list of candidates, with the original aim of seeking more acceptances because I mistakenly thought they were needed. This ia something that can't be done talking just about one candidate at a time. It has shown that most people would be happy with any slate of moderators that included Suresh, Shane, and Ryan, and would be happy with just those three. This is in no sense an extra round, just a discussion about what to make of the current, ongoing round. $\endgroup$ Aug 31 '10 at 7:34

Browse other questions tagged .