I am worried that the moderators can now only be selected from those with 10.3k reputation.
I understand that we must limit our options using some method, as too many choices would make this process more difficult.
- Very high rep users are not any more likely to moderate than those in the 7-10k range - in fact I'd say their participation, by definition, tends more towards answering questions than moderating.
- It widens the gap between the high rep and low rep users. While it's not a political office, it's more of a policing function, having people who are very good at getting rep do the policing may result in moderation that tends to favor those who are good at getting rep.
- Reputation is more a measure of expertise in a variety of subjects, but does not at all correlate with being fair, impartial, and patient.
- It doesn't seem democratic at all to only allow the "higher class" to participate in elections.
I'm not saying anyone should be able to nominate themselves, but should we not consider the above further, and ask if this is the best way to determine the 30 people who will go into the primary election?
I'd rather see 50+ people go into the primary with 3k or 7k and above reputations and go through the list, upvoting those in the primary that seem reasonable, than see people who would be great moderators drop off the list because they only have a measly 10k rep.