Moderator elections in beta sites?

Question

Per my previous question, it seems like the beta phase of sites is continuing much longer than previously. Currently, pro-temp moderators are nominated when a site is only a few weeks old, when the site is still very new and unshaped. They continue until they are unable to moderate, or the site graduates to a full site. The problem that I'm seeing is that there are now sites that have been in beta for over a year, which is a time period sufficient that many changes can be made in a persons life, that the community has started to take ownership already, and as a whole, seems to be ready to start taking at least some ownership.

So, the question is, should we allow elections for beta sites that have crossed over some considerable amount of time, perhaps 6 months or something around that mark?

Answer 1

The problem that I'm seeing is that there are now sites that have been in beta for over a year, which is a time period sufficient that many changes can be made in a persons life, that the community has started to take ownership already, and as a whole, seems to be ready to start taking at least some ownership.

Why not just appoint new moderators if something has changed so that the original person is unable or unwilling to continue serving?

Jeff has said before that we don't want to hold moderator elections unless we can be reasonably certain that they'll be successful—meaning plenty of nominees, plenty of voters, etc. If all of those things are in place, then the site is probably ready to graduate out of beta, and then moderator elections can/will be held as scheduled.

You note that the community seems to be ready to take some ownership, but don't forget that community members with the necessary privileges can already share in the work of improving their site. Many features are available to them, such as the /review tab, the ability to edit questions and answers, moderator flags, and the Meta site. You don't have to be a moderator to make a difference!

Answer 2

I noticed two new thoughtful answers to this question and, by coincidence, the community team discussed this very issue yesterday. I'm not writing on behalf of the team, but rather summarizing my thoughts after our discussion.

Initially the idea was that a beta site would graduate (or be folded) after 90 days or so. In that scenario, appointing moderators pro tempore was not a particularly consequential task. If a CM happened to make a bad choice, the mistake could be corrected a few months later by an election. These days, that first moderator appointment can be of great consequence as "temporary" moderators might serve for years. Appointed moderators are almost always winners in the first election after graduation because there's a powerful incumbent effect.

Meanwhile, finding qualified and willing moderators for sites that have long been in beta turns out to be an ongoing task for the community team. I think we do a pretty good job, but it's a heavy responsibility. I'd much prefer each site's community pick their leadership than me. That said, it's very uncomfortable to think about running elections on sites with few eligible voters. Even assuming we require moderators to be reelected upon graduation, a moderator might serve for years. The more nominees and voters we have, the more likely an election will result a well-qualified moderator team.

Yearly, as-needed moderator elections

One idea that some of us on the community team considered is holding regularly scheduled elections. After the first election, incumbent moderators would have the option to continue in the position without facing reelection. But if one or more moderators decide to step down, we'd run an election to replace them. Meanwhile, if the moderator team needs extra help, we could run an election to add a member to the team. (Also, both situations could be handled at the same time.) If there is neither a need for an additional nor a replacement moderator, the election wouldn't be run.

It might not be immediately clear how this will help with the "too few people having too great an influence" problem. It turns out the most common reason we replace moderators is that they stop moderating. There are all sorts of reasons people become inactive: new job, new family responsibility, sickness, lost interest in the site/topic, and just life in general. When that happens today, we need to reach out to figure out whether a new moderator is needed. If we ran yearly elections, moderators who are no longer interested or able to do the job will just not reup and thereby trigger a replacement election.

Elections are not (yet) automated

Unfortunately, running an election is somewhat time consuming. On the front end:

1. A CM contacts the moderator team to find out who might be stepping down and how many slots the election could be. (This would be automated by surveying the moderator team a month or so before the scheduled election.)

2. Grace Note prepares a meta post asking for questions to be asked of nominees a week or so before the start of the election.

3. Grace Note published the nominee questionnaire at the start of the election with the most upvoted questions.

4. When people nominate themselves, the community team watches for joke nominations and nominees who are ineligible. We also watch for heated comments on nomination statements.

5. When the nomination phase ends, we make sure there's at least one more nominee than available slots. (If there are too few nominees, we extend the nomination period.)

After the election ends:

1. I use OpaVote to determine the winner(s).

2. I post an announcement on meta with the results and thank any moderators who are stepping down.

3. I do the actual steps to install and remove moderators.

Just about all of this could be automated. But it isn't exactly the most pressing issue for me since my steps take maybe half an hour a week. I'm not sure how much longer Grace Note's steps take or if I'm missing any steps. In any case, we couldn't keep up if all 166 sites were to have elections. So I'm going to take some time today and next week to write up a specification for automating elections. Without that piece, we can't really consider running elections on beta sites.

Answer 3

A large part of why a site has not graduated is they need a higher level of participation. Coincidentally, the criteria for holding an election is also achieving a high level of participation. So the two events (graduation and election) track together rather tightly.

Having said that, we keep in constant communication with moderators. If a moderator feels they need a break, we can (and have) appointed additional moderators to help with the workload.

Part of the beta cycle is to allow time for the community to take complete control of the site; To become self governing. Elections can and do go badly when the site is not ready. While that self-governance is still taking shape, it simply is not advisable to hold a half-baked election cycle.

Answer 4

This is a five year old question, with 5 year old answers. At the time those answers made good sense. I wonder if they still do.

With the changes and clarifications in the difference between success and graduation beta sites are living longer then they did 5 years ago. They are successful with well defined scope but just have not graduated.

Voting is an important part of community engagement. By denying moderator elections to sites that are successful with well defined scopes and strong communities, we are disenfranchising the community.

There are beta sites all along the continuum some are definitely not ready for community moderator elections, but others very well may be.

I propose that around the 3 year in beta anniversary, the community asks itself if it is ready for moderator elections. If not, the community voted for the status quo. If they do want elections, they hold them. In either case we are giving each community the opportunity to make the decision.

Answer 5

I, too, have noticed this issue on some sites. Moderators are chosen early in beta and, two or three years down the line, the team is unchanged, most of the community wasn't even around then, and some of the people whose straw-poll votes were factored into SE's decisions are long gone. Sometimes everybody's happy and the team should just keep doing what they're doing. Other times, community members feel disappointed that this was all decided in week 3 and others will never get a chance because ObscureTopic.SE just isn't going to graduate this decade. Even though the moderators are doing good jobs (well, as a moderator on a long-running beta, I like to think so :-) ), to community members it can be disappointing even when there's nothing actually wrong. (I've written elsewhere about cases where the moderation team might need some changes.)

I've been thinking that, starting around the 2-year mark, we should give a beta community the opportunity to rotate one moderator per year if there have been no other mod changes in that year. (If somebody stepped down and was replaced, or the team was expanded, there's already been a change.) If the community wants a change (determination of this TBD), the moderator team and SE would decide whether to expand the team or replace somebody. If they decide to replace, the moderator team would decide among themselves who should step down.¹ SE would choose another moderator, ideally by making a nomination post like they do for the initial group. The whole point is community participation, after all, but the decision remains SE's as with any other beta-mod appointment.

Limiting this to one change per year ensures continuity while bringing in new perspective and energy (and community engagement leading up to that appointment).

This would be an option, not a requirement; if the community is happy (measurement of happiness TBD), then don't change anything. If the community wants a change, do this. Ask again a year later. Either way, I hope moderators who are stepping down won't feel bad about it; they knew that beta moderation isn't forever, they can come back later, and they'll be senior, experienced users who can help the site to continue to grow.

¹ On the teams I've been part of, this conversation would not be drama-prone; beta mods know going in that appointments aren't forever and are meant to be for a couple years, and they could choose to "draw straws" if they don't want to have a deeper discussion. SE can modify this process on a case-by-case basis if a particular site seems prone to explode over this somehow.

Answer 6

should we allow elections for beta sites that have crossed over some considerable amount of time, perhaps 6 months or something around that mark?

Elections are tied to beta specifically because there is no point in holding moderator elections for a site that is still in its formative stage.

While it would be nice if every site was well defined after a set period of time, we have to recognize that each site is unique, and the community that forms around it will decide, ultimately, what it will be.

The beta time is set aside for those changes to occur, in addition to the normal questions of viability.

Pro-tem moderators know their terms are limited. They don't know how long they'll serve, but they understand that they are only in place until the site becomes stable enough to be released from beta.

Elected moderators, however, currently have unlimited terms.

Electing a moderator prior to release from beta leaves us with a problem in that the moderator may have a different idea for what the site should be than what the community has chosen after their election. Pro-tem moderators wield a significant amount of power in forming that community, which is why they are carefully chosen by Stack Exchange. Once the community is put in power of selecting its own moderators, though, it is expected that they will choose the moderators that will continue to enforce the community's mandate as to what the site is.

During beta, the community is not complete.

Therefore, moderator elections are not held until after beta release.