There are a few parts that have loopholes big enough to drive trucks through; but I expected that given the level of trust the company and moderator community share right now. This agreement, along with the moderator removal and the moderator reinstatement process are the three major ways to show the company is listening *and wants to rebuild trust*. Keep in mind, they have to satisfy two different groups, even though obstensibly the moderator agreement only affects moderators. They have to satisfy moderators, of course, but also the community at large. The things we write down are the things we care about. The things we tout as our written policies even more so. Policies are a reflection of a company's mindset, and in order for people to be willing to work with the company, the company needs to be worthy of that work. These agreements are your best way (right now) to do that. I've [left my feedback on the moderator reinstatement process](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/350211/16587), such as it is. The reinstatement process needs serious work, but that's because the moderator removal process needs serious work. You spawned the removal process mere days and weeks after the ill-conceived firing of a Meta.SE moderator. This moderator agreement shows that we can achieve a more equitable solution when more effort is put into the process. Put more effort into your removal process; resolve the many issues we've brought up. Work to endear trust with your community -- where else would future moderators come from, if not the community they work to serve? Outside of those loopholes that codify the problems that caused the moderator exodus past October, it’s a good agreement. Since those loopholes have been codified, it is reasonable to say the events of last October could repeat themselves. The exodus started due to an ill-timed firing that happened after questions were raised in moderator chat. An edict was given and that was that. No follow up. This policy codifies those “give the edict and leave” actions into binding upon moderators. Particularly sections `v` and `vi`: > v. I will abide by all other officially announced moderator and user > policies made available to me. > vi. I will accept additional guidance > given by members of the Stack Exchange, Inc. Community Team and Senior > Leadership Team, whether in response to questions, concerns or > discussions regarding existing network-wide policies. It was a member of either the Senior Leadership team or the Community team that did it (I’m not so sure where they fell in the hierarchy then since it’s changed since then). My questions are simple: What is considered an official policy being communicated? Is it something said in the Teacher’s Lounge? Pinned there? Posted on teams? Posted on this meta? Posted on the blog? Emailed? Same questions with “accepting guidance given by [employees]”. If I see an answer and another mod isn’t checking the TL and they don’t see it, can they be fired? If they say “I’m not going to enforce it until we get some clarifications” can they be fired? The moderator agreement says “I will accept” — are we talking military or monastic obedience? These are thorny issues that need to be spelled out more clearly than they are. But, there were 550 moderators that saw this new agreement, and I hope they brought up theses points and received acceptable answers from Stack Overflow the Company. It’s one thing to address these things in private in a non-binding way; it’s another to codify those conversations into public policy. The agreement has enough holes that *nothing has been codified* to prevent another October exodus, and that worries me. NB: I initially left my feedback [in a thread on twitter](https://twitter.com/gortok/status/1281033149179465731?s=20). For posterity, I've included that feedback here, in an extended form.