During strike negotiations between community representatives and representatives of Stack Exchange, Inc., an initial process for determining if Stack Exchange, Inc. violated the Mod Agreement was agreed to:

In the event that Stack Exchange, Inc. is found to have violated the Moderator Agreement, Stack Exchange, Inc. must:

  • Retract and nullify any actions taken or comments made during the course of the violation; and
  • Issue a public apology to Meta Stack Exchange detailing the violation made.

In order to establish that such a violation took place, a consensus must be reached by a certain number of Stack Exchange network moderators. The numbers that we are working with at the moment were initially proposed by a moderator, not by the company, and haven't been finalized. The numbers will be discussed on the Mod Team before being finalized. The placeholder numbers are:

  • a minimum of 20% of Stack Exchange network moderators must vote on if a violation was committed
  • a minimum of 90% of moderators voting must vote that a violation was committed

At the time of writing, there are 541 network moderators. These percentages would require there to be a minimum of 108 moderators voting, with at least 97 of those agreeing that a violation took place.
These percentages may be adjusted during the feedback and review period for changes to the Moderator Agreement.
(myself, "Moderation strike: Results of negotiations")

During feedback collecting while negotiations happened, a significant number of people indicated dissatisfaction with the percentages outlined. The 90% agreement requirement was particularly called out as being too high.

While this does particularly affect diamond moderators, there is nothing about this discussion (AFAICT) that needs to be private, and so I am raising this for discussion to the broader community:

What percentages would be more reasonable in this process? What percentage of moderators should be required to vote, and what percentage of those voting need to agree on the outcome?

Tooling will also be purpose-built for initiating this process and collecting votes from as many moderators as possible, and so figuring out what kind of percentages would be necessary in this process would help to identify what the tools should look like for this process.

  • 15
    What percentage of moderators are active in the private Teams instance or regularly in the TL? I don't have an issue with the 90% because it seems like the bias would be tilted toward finding a violation occurred. I think the percentage of voting mods needs data. One data point could be to advertise a vote on this issue the same way a vote on a violation would be advertised and see how many mods respond. Also, how long it takes to get to a steady state of no more votes should be noted.
    – ColleenV
    Aug 4, 2023 at 12:48
  • 2
    The strike organisation feels like one data point, since it gives an idea of - under difficult circumstances, how many mods we can rustle up - and the suggested numbers look around there Aug 4, 2023 at 14:23
  • 2
    What's the process if quorum isn't reached? Vote again, or call it a nay?
    – tripleee
    Aug 6, 2023 at 12:23
  • 1
    @tripleee - That's worth a discussion, but I think we'd want something like the mod election system in that case - a time extension and then call it off if there's still not enough engagement.
    – Mithical
    Aug 6, 2023 at 12:55
  • 1
    I think this proposal is more complicated than necessary. The goal is to be able to determine if a violation occurred as fairly as possible in a low-trust environment. I hope we don't need to build a formal assembly of mods to get through the low-trust part. We'd be better off randomly choosing a group of uninvolved mods from some nominally active mod pool to hear both sides and recommend further action if they think there's a violation and SE doesn't agree. Mirror a simplified version of the process for removing a mod. SE thinks that's fair and put a lot of time into developing it.
    – ColleenV
    Aug 8, 2023 at 18:35
  • Has a conclusion been reached on what to use as voting platform?
    – Mast
    Aug 11, 2023 at 18:20

5 Answers 5


We should turn to Robert's Rules of Order for some guidance.

The first step is to define a quorum. According to the Rules of Order, this offers "protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons". Quorums are determined by the body, which is what we are being asked to do. Looking through various governments, quorums tend to range from 1/3 to 1/2 of the total body participating. Some are as small as 1/10.

I do think it's reasonable to consider the SE mods in a similar light as representative assemblies. After all, we are elected by our communities to do work on behalf of that community. However, as humans and volunteers, we have other aspects to our lives that may take priority over our time to the network. I would propose that the quorum should be at most 1/3. The 1/5 figure seems reasonable to me.

At least 1/5 of network mods should have to cast a valid vote.

The next question is if a super majority or simple majority is needed. Due to the importance of this subject, I would suspect that we do want a super majority. A 2/3 majority is quite commonly used as the necessary super majority for these changes. This also seems reasonable.

At least 2/3 of voting moderators should agree on the decision that someone has violated an agreement.

This means that 109 moderators would have to vote and 73 moderators would have to agree that a violation occurred. If more moderators vote, the number who agree would increase.

  • 9
    Mods are elected to handle things for their community, not necessarily to represent that community or moderators during discussions of network-wide issues. I think the number of moderators that consider themselves obligated to participate in network-wide policy setting is much smaller than the total number of elected mods, and that setting proportions relative to the total number isn't really representative of the actual assembly for this purpose.
    – ColleenV
    Aug 4, 2023 at 13:43
  • 1
    @ColleenV Yes. Mods are elected to handle things for their community. That includes participating in discussions and votes around network-wide policy and violation of agreements between the company and moderators. These are things that impact their communities. If a moderator doesn't feel comfortable, perhaps they should consider stepping down in favor of people who can represent their community. Aug 4, 2023 at 13:47
  • In addition, one of the changes requires update to the Moderator Agreement. This expectation is something that should be codified there. Since moderators will have to reagree, anyone who doesn't want to accept this can not agree and be replaced by election with someone who can. Aug 4, 2023 at 13:50
  • 2
    Can you clarify for me where in the information around running for moderator or in the mod agreement it states that a volunteer is obligated to help the company set network-wide policy and or assist with the enforcement of the mod agreement? If someone is unwilling to do that, you think they should not be mods? These are volunteers, and don't have to live eat and breathe SE to be effective for their communities
    – ColleenV
    Aug 4, 2023 at 13:51
  • 2
    @ColleenV It is explicit in every site's definition of moderator roles. Not only do moderators "act as a liaison between the community and Stack Exchange the company", but they are expected to deal with things that "could otherwise disrupt the community". Engagement in network-wide policies and agreements fall into both categories. Aug 4, 2023 at 13:56
  • 3
    Acting as a liaison for a community is communicating policy changes from the company to the community and communicating problems from the community to the company. It is not participating in policy development. It is not becoming a an active member of the greater network-wide mod community. The mods that do take on that greater level of engagement should be treasured, but mods who don't care about what happens outside their site's community still provide value to that community.
    – ColleenV
    Aug 4, 2023 at 15:15
  • @ColleenV That is not the common interpretation of the role of a moderator acting as a liaison and is not consistent with the Help Center page that I linked to. Aug 4, 2023 at 15:17
  • 2
    You can assert that if you want, but the reality is that your interpretation is not the majority's interpretation. The highly engaged mods that organized this strike and made the company correct course are the exception. I would wager most mods don't even visit their site every day. They are volunteers and the company gets whatever time and attention they have to give.
    – ColleenV
    Aug 4, 2023 at 15:34
  • @ColleenV What the majority believes to be true or not doesn't matter. I see no ambiguity in the Help Center at all. It's quite clear that moderators, by standing in an election, being elected, and agreeing to the moderator policies, have agreed to act as a liaison between their respective community (or communities, in some cases) and the company. It's clearly documented as a role for a moderator, and if someone feels that they cannot carry out that role, then they should step down. Aug 4, 2023 at 15:42
  • 10
    I support this answer if only because it is based on a known and tested system; when possible, we should aim to build on the work of others, adjusting them only to address unique aspects or known mistakes ... vs inventing entirely new mistakes. See also: the moderator action review process (based on known systems) vs moderator reinstatement process (based on my own sleep-deprived scribblings)
    – Shog9
    Aug 4, 2023 at 16:10
  • And the numbers here seem very practical to dredge up Aug 5, 2023 at 23:34

The denominator should not be "every single mod"

Not all moderators are active. To be blunt, it's actually surprising that some of them have managed to keep their diamonds for so long — I guess they just silently handle a flag or delete a comment every so often and then disappear into the sunset. This is a subject that gets some tempers flaring, but I don't think it's a big deal currently, for one reason: They're not a burden. This policy, however, would definitely change that.

Even among the active moderators, not everyone wants to get involved in network affairs. I suspect if you asked them, they might even tell you that themselves. These mods should not be included either.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure a good way to put this into an objective measure. Do we make it opt-out and also prune out anyone who doesn't meet some minimum activity requirement (maybe you'd need activity within the last month)? Opt-in? Of course, if any of those inactive mods did show up and vote, the total would be adjusted.

Some numbers

  • Looking at vote tallies on the Mod Team, over 120 people have now voted on the post from the end of May (see (Historical) Policy on the use of GPT detectors) and over 70 on the new (interim) policy, posted almost two days ago and still rapidly gathering votes. Both of these were orange diamond events, meaning that any mod who was on their site saw the notification. These are pretty incredible numbers, I think. However, it likely includes some staff, and casual voters (who wouldn't have voted if it meant something more serious than a simple reputation change). I would also expect that it would be hard to get this amount of turnout for more localized issues.
  • On Discord (server invite), there are about 100 users with the "SE mod" role (not to be confused with the mutually exclusive "SE staff" role). These are all verified, since you can only get the role after pinging a server admin in SE native chat. It's unclear how many of these people would respond to a ping, however (since I know some only joined to keep tabs on the strike and probably don't get push notifications). About 40 mods are usually online at any moment, and some more (my invisible self included) are offline but reachable by ping. (I'm also not sure that we should rely on an unofficial server for official announcements going forward, but it's potentially a useful supplement.)
  • The Teachers' Lounge tends to have between 30 and 40 people in the room at once, including maybe up to 5 staff. Additionally, some mods may keep tabs on it using only the transcript (me, for the most part), though it's impossible to know how many. Soon after the GPT policy was released (maybe when the strike was getting started), I think I may have seen up to 60 in the room, but I have never seen so many before or since.
  • 1
    The argument that moderators don't want to be involved in "network affairs" is not sound. See the role of site moderators: all sites have the equivalent of this Help Center page. Moderators are expected to act as liaison between their communities and the company and to "deal with" things that may "disrupt the community". I do think that you're right that some inactive mods should be removed (and replaced through an election) if that are not doing these things, and mods who choose not to do these things should step down (and, again, be replaced) Aug 4, 2023 at 14:48
  • 7
    @ThomasOwens The article there lists escalations and meta tagging, not issues like this. Both of those are between your own site and the company. Nobody is able to keep up with every single site on the network, but a policy violation could happen on any of them, without much effect elsewhere. It could involve only people you've never heard of on a site that might as well not exist for all you know. We don't want uneducated voting in a case like this.
    – Laurel
    Aug 4, 2023 at 15:12
  • 10
    We can require mods to do the equivalent of registering to vote I suppose and require some annual confirmation they are still interested and have the time to be involved in network-wide policy development.
    – ColleenV
    Aug 4, 2023 at 15:21
  • @ColleenV That should be its own answer.
    – Akixkisu
    Aug 5, 2023 at 15:42
  • 1
    @AkixkisuisonStrike Feel free to post it if you want to.
    – ColleenV
    Aug 5, 2023 at 21:23
  • As one data point, what are the numbers of up and down votes on the most engaging posts in the mod-only SOfT instance?
    – tripleee
    Aug 6, 2023 at 5:50
  • 1
    @tripleee I think there's only one post on the team with more total votes than that one, and not by much (it has less than 130 votes). Announcements of shiny new/upgraded tools may reach 40 votes (well, 38 if the past two are any indication) and most other posts get less than 10 votes.
    – Laurel
    Aug 6, 2023 at 11:09

I don't have an opinion on the numbers, but the voting system in general:

The placeholder numbers are:

  • a minimum of 20% of Stack Exchange network moderators must vote on if a violation was committed
  • a minimum of 90% of moderators voting must vote that a violation was committed

At the time of writing, there are 541 network moderators. These percentages would require there to be a minimum of 108 moderators voting, with at least 97 of those agreeing that a violation took place. These percentages may be adjusted during the feedback and review period for changes to the Moderator Agreement.

I'd recommend to not have a "minimum participation" clause, but instead a "minimum agreement" clause.

As is, there is a possibility for a situation that a moderator not agreeing finds it more favorable to abstain instead of voting against it.

E.g. when 100 moderators already said "yes" and 7 "no", one additional "no" vote will move the result from "no" to "yes".

You normally don't want such negative vote weights in your voting system. (With secret votes, every single no-leaning moderator would have to guess how everyone else voted to decide whether it makes sense to abstain or vote no.)

Instead I suggest something like this (feel free to adjust the numbers, this was just to keep it somewhat equivalent):

  • A minimum of 18% of the Stack Exchange network moderators must vote that the violation was committed.
  • A mimimum of 90% of all moderators voting must vote that the violation was committed.

This means at least 97 moderators (with the quoted numbers) need to agree that a violation took place, and not more than 10% of all voters disagreed.

  • 1
    IMHO this is a really important thing to be considered!
    – Philippos
    Aug 14, 2023 at 11:25

TL,DR the numbers seem too high. How exactly inactive mods etc should be counted towards the total 100% needs to be worked out.


Perhaps SEI did not view the Moderator Agreement as a two-sided document. Not an uncommon thing, really, where there are significant power imbalances. The "in power" side creates an "agreement" to allow others to do special things, or have access to extra functionalities under controlled conditions. They view it as a form of gate-keeping, perhaps even a bit of a legal shield if the outside party does something which could create legal issues for them. They ignore, in an unintentional manner, that entering into an agreement creates responsibilities on their side as well. At last, with the recent events, SEI has come to realize there is a second side to the agreement and has, barely, accepted, the possibility that their side of the agreement can be broken. At least in theory. I don't see that they've accepted that it has been broken, or that it is possible they might break it in practice. Only that it is a theoretical possibility.

It seems, therefore, that something has to be built, an understanding and a process, to "prove" they broke the agreement if and when they do so.


There is a common axiom that locks keep honest people honest. Following the logic behind that, and presuming good intentions on SEI's behalf, knowing that the agreement is two-sided, that they have responsibilities and that it can be broken by their actions as well as a moderator's actions, they will work towards not breaking it. Especially once the change is added to their press policy, they will have time to question whether or not a decision would break that agreement, and correct the plans accordingly.

Accidents happen. SEI is not a huge company. It is, still, large enough to have areas where communications can break down. It is likely that, at some point in time, the "ball will be dropped" and the Moderator agreement will be broken. When that happens, as accidents always do, and the affected moderator(s) raise objections, it would be, at a second level, ideal for SEI to recognize the violation, admit to the mistake and take corrective action. All with no further input needed from the affected moderator(s), or by involving other moderators through invoking the process being considered here. That would be ideal; however, with corporate entities such an ideal response is uncommon, and highly unlikely. (Of note, I'm not calling out SEI, as a specific entity here, merely recognizing that SEI is a corporation, and is likely to have the same tendencies as any other corporation.)


As a non-mod there are things which I take for granted, and others which I presume to exist, and even more which I know nothing about. Until recently I knew nothing about the "orange diamond" notifications. It may have been mentioned in other Meta questions and I missed it, or ignored it. I don't need to know that it exists, let alone how it works, as I'll never see it or use it anyway. I know that there are many things which moderators do that require them to contact staff as the normal course of doing their moderations. I presume that, normally, the staff would be a CM. Either the CM they are assigned to, if any, or one they've developed a working relationship with. Maybe just whoever is "on call" from the CM team. Again, regular users such as myself have no need to know the how and when. It happens however it does whenever it needs to happen, and the moderators know when and how. I further presume that either using the same method, or some other method created for that purpose, the moderators are able to escalate things to SEI and that the same back channels would be used to raise objections about a violation of the Moderator Agreement by the moderator(s) involved.

At that point I suppose there are three options available to the contacted staff. The first, best, option is the second level ideal above; "Oops. Our bad. We'll get that fixed." The second, and still reasonable, option is for a dialog to commence where the moderator explains why they think it is a violation, and staff explains why it is not a violation. The dialog ends up with one or the other changing their opinion. If the staff ends up seeing it as a violation we're back to the "Oops..." and it gets handled. If the moderator ends up seeing that it isn't a violation after all, or for whatever reason decides that it is acceptable, the issue is dropped. If, however, neither can agree with the other, it leads to the third possibility of the initial contact anyway. The third, least desirable, option is that staff, and SEI, don't recognize that a violation has occurred, and the new, yet to be built, process is invoked.


So much of what might work, and what seems reasonable, depends on how the tooling is built and used. If there is a 24 hour window for voting, the numbers need to be much smaller. If there's no method available for discussion, built into the tooling rather than relegated to random chat somewhere, the percent 'yes' needs to be smaller. If the notice that a vote is needed is easy to ignore, or worse, miss, the total votes needs to be smaller.

Since I have no input on the tooling I'm not going to really get into what I think it should be, other than to put out there that it should include the ability to debate the issue, with staff and moderators involved, for long enough that with scattered moderators (in space and time availability) there are enough eyes on the issue long enough to have 'informed' opinions. The orange diamond might be suitable, or might not, as a notice. Only the moderators who've dealt with that system have the knowledge of its efficacy.

The participation

My original thoughts didn't include this at all. I was under the impression that the moderators, on all the sites, were at least on common ground in mod-only spaces. Once in a while, monthly at least, I figured all mods would pop into TL, or the new Teams thing, to check on network-wide issues. Through the course of the strike I've learned that such is not the case. Not even close in many cases.

Recently, relative to this subject, I've also seen suggestions that some mods think dealing with the issue, if it happens, is akin to a "sworn duty", or part of the "solemn oath of office". Other views are that it is part of being a liaison between their community and the company. Yet others are in the camp of "not a problem on my site, not a problem for me to deal with."

IHMO it is not a duty in any sense for moderators to be involved in such a dispute. It is not something involving the site they moderate, so the 'liaison' point is moot. The Moderator Agreement, near as I can tell, is silent on expectations of moderators dealing with any part of company policy which doesn't affect the operations of the public sites, which would include the Moderator Agreement itself. So, there is no duty, obligation, or expectation built into the agreement, or the position of moderator, which requires or compels moderators to be involved in the voting.

While there is nothing official to compel moderators to get involved, there is determined self-interest. If, somehow, the Moderator Agreement is broken by SEI, it only affects, directly, the one moderator, or perhaps one site's moderators. Originally, anyway. That is was broken, however, could affect all moderators. If SEI can break it for this reason or in this case, they'll also be able to break it for any other reason or case later. As someone bound by that agreement, their own self-interest is best served by maintaining the integrity of that agreement - regardless of who's directly affected at the moment.

Still, with the existing sentiments, and having no idea how wide-spread or isolated they might be, I have to think that the 20% of moderators might be a high-water mark for a quorum. I've seen some discussions about moderators being able to mark themselves as "inactive" for periods of time. I presume this is mostly a courtesy to their on-site co-mods, such that while on vacation and traveling the other mods know that they are unavailable and not working, for whatever reason. It is, after all, still an unpaid work, no matter how invested they might be. I've also heard of cases were a mod has all but stopped their activity for a while, and I even know of one personally. Not because they've decided to become inactive, simply due to other things, such as life, taking a priority and sort of forgettingsabout moderation. Completely unintentional, yet inactive and probably unavailable, nonetheless.

I do think that, certainly, the moderators who've marked themselves as inactive as well as those who've gone inactive for a while - perhaps 3 weeks or more, should be reduced from the total number of moderators before deciding what a quorum is at any point that it becomes needed. I'm sure that SEI has access to enough information to figure out how many mods are currently active without having to ask anyone. Perhaps they even have the ability to determine if the orange diamond notice has been displayed and acted upon or not. However it's done, if the number of required votes is based on a quorum figured from the active moderator total, 1/5 (20%) seems reasonable. On the high end, for sure. Yet, it is also a severe situation, and keeping the number slightly high seems understandable.

The tally

Here I have three different issues. How the voting happens, how the voting is counted, and how many 'yea' votes are required.

SEI has used a voting system for the mod elections which appears to be validated and secret. I presume it's capable of handling a yes/no type of voting as well. Of course, SEI could spin up its own system, along with all the developer time required, a few rounds of testing, some form of validation, and a couple rounds of attempted hacking. Using what's ready-made and tested seems better, from an investment view. With luck, it's never going to be used, and even if so, rarely. Too little use for too much time and investment to spin an in-house system.

While the desired outcome is a yes/no binary decision, the voting mechanism ought to include an "abstain" option. That allows for someone to acknowledge that they did receive the notice, did act upon it, and are not making a decision. The potential abuse I see with having that option is that a choice of "abstain" ends up being counted as a 'vote cast', and as it is not a 'yea' becomes, by default, a 'nay' vote. The concept of qui tacet consentire videtur ought not apply to either option. Such a selection should not be counted as a 'vote' towards the number needed to reach a quorum. It clearly is not a vote so it is not 'yea', it is not 'nay' and it is not countable.

As to the actual tally of votes and what results are considered as indicating that the agreement was broken, I'm considering a 90% threshold much too high. I'm most familiar with the different voting requirements in the USA. Whilst there's plenty of issues with the people in the system, and how the system is used, or abused, the structure of the system has remained stable, and effective, for a couple of centuries. That makes it seem like a good place to look for inspiration on some thresholds. Sticking to what's considered 'extreme' cases, of course.

Veto override: If the Congress passes a bill, the President can decide it's a bad one and veto it. If Congress disagrees they can attempt to override that veto. In the 234 years that system has been in effect there have been 1524 Presidential vetoes. A grand total of 112 (7%) have been overridden by Congress and that only requires two-thirds of the members voting.

A bit more extreme is the impeachment process. Impeachment itself amounts to being charged with a crime, and only requires a simple majority in the House of Representative. The trial itself is handled by the Senate, and a conviction requires a vote of two-thirds of the members present. Members present is a bit tougher than members voting. It's also limited to 101 'members present' at any one time, and could be as small as 51 'members present'. In total, over the 234 year history of the Constitution, impeachment has happened 21 times. Only 8 (all judges interestingly enough) have resulted in a conviction.

The most extreme case would be an amendment to the Constitution itself. This change to the most important document in the history of the country requires a full three-fourths of the states to ratify. That's 75%, 15 percentage points less than the 90% proposed for this process. Still, in the 234 year history of the union, such a process has only been successful 27 times. There are 6 attempts which have not, yet, succeeded, 2 of which have expired. The most recent amendment only took 202 years to pass.

Since raw numbers were provided, I'll quickly convert the last pair to raw numbers. (Have to skip the override as that is limited to members voting, and with any number of abstentions the number of votes cast will be too variable to help.) For conviction of an impeachment that requires anywhere from 34 'yea' votes to 67. For a constitutional amendment, at the current count, that requires 38 ratifications. Applied to the process being considered here, with all moderators considered active, and a 20% quorum requirement, the numbers are 72 for a 2/3 vote and 81 for a 3/4 vote, if the minimum of 108 votes are collected.

These might seem like small numbers. Even the 97 (90%) value seems small. Adding a bit of perspective can help. As important as the moderators considered the grounds for a strike, only 125 ended up signing the open letter. And to gather than many signatures took until the 27th of June, even though the letter was drafted, and posted, well before the strike began. I know that many sites had inactive moderators, for a variety of reasons, and that quite a few sites ended up without active moderation even when all the mods on the site didn't sign the letter. I also gather that a few voted with their feet, and just quit - presumably withholding their official resignation until the strike is resolved, perhaps to see if there's any reason to return before making it official.

As I see the numbers, and the examples of US processes, I cannot see a requirement of 90% 'yea' votes bring justified, or justifiable. I find the impeachment example as the most compelling. It is, after all, an impeachment of the company for violation of the agreement which is being proposed here. A vote of two-thirds, a quorum being present, seems a high enough bar to reach, giving the company sufficient assurance that it won't be random luck, yet possible enough that the policy will keep them honest in their dealings with the moderators.

In the end, it will become part of the Moderator Agreement, and all mods will have to reaffirm their acceptance of the agreement, so each moderator will have to decide if they consider the final numbers - both quorum size and tally threshold - to be acceptable to themself.

  • +1 for the "Ideal" and "Pre-process" sections – I'd hope that most conflicts would be solved in this stage, and not need the big vote. Aug 8, 2023 at 18:09

I think 3 independent moderators, pointing out what the problem is, is enough (not 3% of all mods, but 3 mods).

Stack Exchange's public apology could just be a comment like "Oops, sorry. Let's fix that." This way, we can resolve issues quickly, and not let what should be a "whoops" turn into a widespread disaster.

(I note that Stack Exchange likely doesn't need x% of their CMs to point out moderator misbehavior, with y% agreement.)

  • 9
    I like this way of thinking, but the number is probably too small to be acceptable to SE. It's too easy to find three crazy people who will answer "yes" to almost anything in a large enough crowd. A slightly bigger fixed number, like 10 or 12, would be good insurance against conspiracies to weaponize the mod agreement.
    – tripleee
    Aug 7, 2023 at 6:38
  • 4
    I have my own thoughts in this regard, except that my number of choice is one (1). If it were a legal contract which the company had signed, it would only take one (1) plaintiff to get the case before a judge. I would applaud the day that SEI would receive a single complaint about breaking the mod agreement, honestly look at the facts, decide the complaint was valid and take corrective measures. All without ever having received a second complain. All the tooling, voting, counting, and debate about it would never exist. Well, I don't believe I'll be applauding such soon. But... if only...
    – Chindraba
    Aug 7, 2023 at 17:17
  • I guess this could be a step before the big process is invoked – if 3 mods agree, a different person from the community team takes another look (and, if needed, discusses it in the team). I don't think that's enough for the cases where there is actual disagreement on whether the agreement was violated. Aug 8, 2023 at 18:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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