Should Community Moderators be "elected for life", or have terms?

I'd say "for life unless they misbehave or become inactive".

If the site grows quickly we may need to have elections periodically to create more moderators anyway, of course - but I'd say we should keep trusting existing moderators unless we have a reason not to.

I'd be concerned about a moderator who didn't log in for a month, and obviously any examples of abuse of power need to be taken seriously, but other than that I think it's best to let them get on with their "job".

Throw the bums out!

(I jest.)

Me thoughts:

• At least a regular election/selection would be nice. Once a year maybe? Just because a moderator's "term" is up doesn't mean they won't be renewed. We won't necessarily be loosing experience.
• Furthermore, being a moderator is not a bucket full of roses. There is a degree of responsibility involved that can wear on folks, and makes them a target of abuse. No need to run them into the ground. It can also rot the soul, leading to a sense of entitlement. Yes, J&J can boot them, but this is a destructive process.
• Stack Overflow is by its nature very democratic. Having sheriffs for life does not continue that democratic philosophy.
• Being a community moderator is a growth experience for many folks, and I think it would be best for more people to hold the position over time. This would be good for the newly appointed moderators, SO itself, and the wider community.

(I assume a fixed/defined number of ♦ moderators will be determined by the SO team and adjusted as they see fit.)

Something the "kick the bums out" argument sorely misses is sites gradually need more moderators. This is why we add rather than replace mods. This isn't the US where we need one president, and we keep up with the changes as we go. This is more like a big company, and we need more directors/managers/whatever as we go to keep things going. Elections are held because there is more work to do, not because we don't like or trust these guys anymore.

But wait! We'll just elect more new mods each time, who cares if some get voted out?

Training moderators is hard work. Learning to be a moderator is hard work. There's lots of buttons you need to learn when to press and where to find them, what they do. You need to learn the social aspects. You need to learn how to work with your follow mods on your site. You need to learn how to work with other mods on other sites for migrations. You need to learn how to work with users and their complaints/requests/issues. You need to work with Stack Exchange employees and learn the general SE way of applying certain sensitive issues like suspending users. It's a damn lot of work.

In addition to all the added effort for everyone involved, you're also throwing out the very people who already know what they're doing. You're axing your senior developer to bring on an intern, shooting yourself in the foot so you can staple on a hoof, adding awkward metaphors on instead of making sense!

See also If the moderator workload is so high, then why are there only 3 new moderator positions available? if a system were put into place where a growing number of contested spots is available each time, we could quite easily end up in this situation where a hard to manage number of new mods come into play at once.

Finally, this whole thing pits new candidates against old candidates. Suddenly old mods don't want to speak up for the new crop because these jack$##es are after my job! Right now, old mods are a huge part of the election/new mod training process. Turning this into a conflict between old and new mod poisons that relationship in nasty ways. Suddenly letting the community know that Jim Bob would be a good mod could be the final knife in your back that removes your modship.

So no. Mods shouldn't be forced to proceedurally defend their position. If they're doing a good job who the hell cares how long they've been there? If they're not doing a good job...well, who the hell cares how long they've been there, still? An actively harmful new mod shouldn't really get all that much more slack than a mod of 5 years who's actively harmful.

Life Sentence?

1. Moderator for life ends up in an autocracy, a dictatorship without benevolence. Power goes to people's heads. They quickly become completely unaware they they have some personal bias against or for someone or other, and that they are no longer moderating. Besides, which sane person really wants to be a moderator on Stack Overflow for life.

   • if someone's contribution needs to be recognised above all others, fair enough, give them an honorary title for life; but it is honorary, absent of power and responsibility.

Policing the Police

2. The point is, moderators need to be moderated. All their actions and interactions need to be transparent. Like any good police force in a free country. We are only as sick as our secrets. If there is no higher authority, people quickly deteriorate into tyrants. Therefore all the moderators should be able to police any other moderator.

   • once a dispute or personality issue is flagged, then the moderator should voluntarily give up handling the complainant (and thus retain credibility and integrity), or the other moderators take the issue off them (and thus they learn something).

   • absence of this structure means the moderator become a site owner, Stack Overflow becomes the highest ranking moderator.

   • if it is a community, then the community has to police the police. Failing to do so very quickly ends up in a police state. Lack of transparency defines a police state.

3. Of course it is a learning experience. Moderators are going to make mistakes. Let them be corrected, by the other (uninvolved) moderators, it is the only way to grow. People are here for their contribution to the community, not for personal power.

   • But it needs to be recognised that people are people, and their personal and power issues will come to the fore when they are given positions of power.

   • Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord (Baron) Acton.

   • Again (1) is essential.

Terms [of Reference]

Therefore terms, and a healthy pool of enthusiatic moderators, is the only way to go.

1. Elections appear to be the accepted form here, so that is fine. Splits and competition then have to be accepted as a part of the election process. Mature people will be less split, and less personally involved, and therefore post-election can continue to work with others. Immature people will learn.

2. I think six months is too short. One year is minimum. Three years is probably too long for people to commit to (and when they commit, they have to commit to the duty and responsibility of the role, not the power of the position). Two years would be the best; it gives people time to mend their post-election fences, and get their personalities out of the way.

3. The pool has to be large enough so that no one or few people carry an unbalanced workload.

4. The pool has to cross enough time zones to be effectively and immediate in their actions.

5. It also has to have enough range; junior moderators through senior moderators. In order to cultivate senior moderators for the long term.

6. Given that it is a community, the health of the moderator community depends on them exercising and enjoying a real community. Which means no hierarchies. Rank, yes, reputation, yes; but no hierarchies. Hierarchies lead directly to dictatorships.

7. And gender balance. OK, the industry is not gender balanced, but we have to have better gender balance than the industry. Women add value that men cannot understand or identify. They will make mistakes too, the amazons and school marms will get weeded out in one term, just like the stalins.

8. To be clear, I am saying moderators should be elected on the basis of merit, not popularity, but Stack Overflow does not have a system for tracking merit; popularity is all we have. Far more prone to problems people have identified in other answers, but there is no alternative.

Related

One related issue is the FAQ, while I love the short and sweet nature, it is too short and sweet. That leads to each moderator having their own (personal) interpretation of it. Which often results in different moderators have drastically different interpretations, and applications thereof. It also results in substantial waste of time and energy arguing definitions of what "be nice" and "be honest" is, all of which can be avoided. Therefore I think the FAQ need to be fleshed out just a bit more.

• A law cannot be relied upon unless it is stated in definitive terms, and it is applied the same to everyone. Otherwise it is a fish that slides around, and it loses its value. the result is not dictatorship but fiefdoms of warlords.

I always liked the ways Slashdot did it. Moderation abilities are something that you earn and that you have to keep earning. So someone who stays away for a month might lose his/her mod status.

Rather than term limits, I think it would make much more sense to have annual elections in which existing mods need to be re-elected.

This would give mods a chance to reflect on whether they want to keep serving the community, and it would also give the community more voice. Right now, there is very little that forces mods to take account of what the userbase wants. It would probably be better if there were an opportunity for the community to review their behaviour annually.

Should we have term limits that require community moderators be cycled out periodically, so others get a chance to moderate?

No, experience is key here.

Should we hold regular (say, yearly) moderator elections?

This should be done as the community grows. There should be some number to go by. Like at n number of questions / answers per day you need y mods.

Is it better to have a larger pool of community moderators, and let the normal ebb and flow of turnover get us "natural" variability in moderation?

If you are referring to 10k mods. Then I think it's good to have a large pool of them, since usually there are a lot of minor fixes they can do. And when the community grows, the number of 10k mods should grow as well.

An experienced moderator is a good moderator. If they do a good job keep them as long as they wish.

I think at least one new moderator should be elected each year. In the event that we then get too many moderators one long serving moderator should be chosen at random to be removed.

We need new blood to be coming in, but as long as a site is growing fast I don’t think we need to get rid of the old blood.

It's unclear whether the question addresses this as a possibility but it would seem to me that the moderators should both be subjection to periodic elections while having no maximum term limit.

I've seen a lot of comparison to the United States government in these answers and will therefore use it as an example:

The president - term limited

The moderators do not hold executive power. They are not singular decision makers. The reason to term limit the president is because (s)he has a great deal of power concentrated in one person. The president exists as a position because the United States needs a single person to be able to do things like represent the United States in treaty negotiations (whether in person or through an ambassador/negotiator). Clearly moderators are not used for such singular positions and therefore do not need a term limit.

Justices of the supreme court - the only constitutionally created office not subject to re-election/appointment

Justices are appointed to life terms because they are nominally above politics. They must not be held to the whims of the people because they do not form policy. Rather, they decide how specific cases fit the law, which can be unpopular (e.g. if the law does not cover an offense). Of course if they abuse their positions they can be impeached by congress. Furthermore, on the federal side in the United States, judges and justices are not elected by the people, they are appointed and confirmed by elected officials. There job is not to reflect the will of the people, but rather to be skilled in applying the law to specific cases.

As has been pointed out above, moderators do partially fall into this category. They apply the policies to specific cases. However...

Congressman and Senators - no limit but subject to elections every two/six years

Congressman and senators form the bulk of the representation in the United States democracy. They create the statutes that form the law that the courts decide. The president does have the veto power, though the bills are generally crafted in such a way that the president will sign them. As such congressman are elected every two years, so that they will well represent the public. Senators are elected every six years and are expected to be more level headed, representing more people and looking out more for the general good then any specific group of people.

While the moderators do not generally have the ability to change the rules of the site (I know of no specific cases where moderators set the rules, but I would imagine they would have a large say in any changes to the rules), the rules are broad enough that they have a large control over interpretation. As most of us are willing to follow the leaders (not a bad thing), we tend to make our decisions based on what we see the moderators doing. This is as close as we come to democratic decision making on Stack Overflow and in the Stack Exchange. As such, I would suggest we treat the moderators as congressman or better yet senators: elected to terms (overlapping in the case of senators), subject to re-election, generally re-elected unless something is going wrong.

Summary

I would suggest we treat moderators similar to United States Senators. As the closest things to democratic decision makers they should be subject to re-election. As the position involves a significant amount of learning and then teaching they should be elected to overlapping terms (in the United States Senate one third of the Senators are re-elected every two years for a term of six years). Perhaps a moderator would be elected for a three year term with elections held every year. Also, moderators up for re-election could be featured at the top of the list. This would allow moderators the time to learn the job and teach new moderators. Furthermore, most elected officials in any system are re-elected (the incumbent advantage). In general moderators would likely have long terms anyway unless their actions are noticeably and memorably unpopular.

Aside

It might be worth creating another position that decides on matters of policy. They could for example craft answer to popular questions of policy on the meta sites: e.g. when is a homework question allowable. There are often many competing not entirely contradictory, but not entirely the same answers on the meta. Often more than one with quite a few up votes. This body could draft, and vote on, official responses to said questions to leave no doubt as to the official policy. The site's rules could be seen as a constitution of sorts, not generally subject to change. These decisions would then be seen to make up a set of statutes, declaring with a higher degree of precision the interpretation of the rules. Vote records would be kept and if the community doesn't like the positions being taken they could vote in new leadership.

Meanwhile the moderators would be focused towards implementation of the decisions of the new body rather then interpretation of the rules of the site. This would also ease the transition for those with sufficient reputation to use many of the tools given to the community (i.e. votes to close, reopen, etc.). Yes, the meta site does offer some guidance, however it is often hard to determine when consensus has been formed or which of a competing set of answers to use. As far as moderator terms, in this case I would suggest they be long or indefinite (life) as they would no longer be representing the community but rather deciding on the basis of the rules that the new body formed.

I'm a user from Mathematics SE. We are about to have an election and I asked a similar question on the Q&A thread, where I was encouraged to post it here.

Rounding up, our current moderators were elected {8,8,7,7,6,6,3,2,2} years ago. My limited experience with them has been positive: as far as I can tell, they are doing a great job to keep the site working as it's supposed to. However, two-thirds of them have served for over five years, which is a rather long time, specifically when elections happen somewhat infrequently.

Personally I am in favor of gentle term limits. Over at Math.SE, which is a larger site, 3-5 years (maybe the length can vary by community for smaller ones) is probably a good length of time to get acclimated to the responsibilities and make meaningful contributions while allowing other active users to participate in the same way. Being a mod is a lot of work but I think most people have enjoyed doing it and more people should have the opportunity. Math.SE has literally thousands of active, high-quality users but fewer than 20 have served as mods. I believe indefinite terms give too much responsibility to too few users and that it is in the best interests of the community to allow more users to serve as mods by having some term limit.

To be clear: the mods at Math.SE are doing good work!

I am in support of terms, without a cap on the number of times they may be reelected. I think this is a best-of-both-worlds solution between for-life and finitely-termed.

PROS

• Moderators are reminded every election that they are, above all, simply community members with a shiny ♦ next to their name.
• If they seek reelection, moderators must convince the community that they have done their job well and will do so in the future. The community must decide that they have not been abusing their powers and deserve reelection (rather than relying on the mod gods to do so).
• ♦ moderation is more community-oriented. In a for-life solution, seats in the ♦ council will remain filled indefinitely. New members will only be admitted when a) new seats are added or b) a moderator resigns. Under a termed-reelection system, new members can be added as often as every moderator election.
• Being a moderator is a tough job. Having fresh minds on the team would be advantageous.

CONS

• I forsee that this solution could result in a situation where voters consider who to vote for and think "Well, the community hasn't imploded, and I still enjoy participating in it, I'll vote for the incumbent!", meaning that ♦ moderators will continually be reelected regardless of true performance.

Now, would it be such a bad thing if they are continually reelected? I don't think so: it would result in a situation very similar to a for-life scenario. I think that ♦ moderators should have the ability to resign at any point, and a special election be held to fill the vacancy, or a pro-tem mod appointed to finish the term.

Moderation should primarily be a meritocracy as quality of work is more useful than popularity of the work. Democracy is secondary to that - it is peripherally useful in that public opinion of the merits of a particular individual may be correlated with their actual merits. However recent history is littered with examples where this was not the case.

Also, public opinion can be manipulated by people with access to mass media - which can undermine the democratic process by skewing public opinion with incomplete or biased information or outright propoganda.

Replacing a moderator would also be/mean changing the team.

Hopefully a team will jell -- i.e. learn to get along with each other and work together and so on.

Replacing a moderator might make it harder for the rest, if the new moderator disagrees with the others.

For what it's worth I get the impression that if any user complains about a moderator then, other things being equal, SE might be inclined to side with the moderator or the status quo -- and that conversely what's more likely to see a moderator removed, is if the other moderators of the site complain about them.

A benevolent dictatorship is always better than democracy.

May I suggest however, moderators should be:

1. Distributed evenly through time zones - no point having 80% in the US etc.
2. A range of "specialties", this may involve for example "Objective-C only shortlist"
3. Some women - it's a real sausage-fest round here. Seriously, I'd support a "women only short list" for the next moderator.

Definitely don't force them out. Maybe regular elections (6-monthly?), but perhaps even that isn't needed. The downside of "for life" is that unless there is a turnover, when some moderators do then leave, you've suddenly got (perhaps multiple) inexperienced moderators. I'd say leave things as they are for the next 12 months and review things then - I can't see anything going too badly wrong before then!

We should do this the way it is often done with judges. Moderators stand for re-election without opposition on a periodic (say, annual) basis. Almost all of them would win - if not, it's because there is a serious disconnect between them and users that needs to be addressed anyway.

If any moderators are removed as a result of this, elections are held as soon as possible for any needed replacements.

After reading through the previously made answers I think that there is a simple solution. Have an election every 12 months in every SE site for a new moderator, that new moderator has the next 12 months to prove that they can stand the pressure of being a moderator at which point the community has another vote to keep or demote him as a moderator at the same time as electing a new young moderator. this has a few pros and cons:

Pros

• We get a steady flow of new blood in the moderator pool.
• More moderators mean easier work distribution.
• Potential to be scaled up for larger sites e.g. votes every 6 months / 2 mods added every 12 month period.
• Potential to be scaled down for smaller sites e.g. votes happen every 2 years

Cons

• We may get an over abundance of moderators.
• Excessive votes may make less people vote.
• New moderators don't moderate well (this is partially why the 12 month probation period is there)

In my opinion the Pros great outweigh the Cons, and the Cons are things the community will naturally deal with through the voting system. If people don't vote then that's their problem, but they will have the choice to vote if they so wish it.