As we near the middle of our private beta, we probably should decide on moderators for the site. (per the 7 essential meta questions)
In order to do so, we should determine criteria for such a decision. Should we hold an election, pick the top contributors, etc.
If we hold an election, what sort of nominations are expected?
Okay, it's been long enough talking about how to nominate provisional Moderators. It's time to bring attention to some outstanding members of your community. You have to keep the members of this site engaged, or the site will go downhill quickly.
This is a make-it-happen-quickly kind of proposition. It's a temporary appointment. Don't make it overwrought with process and procedure.
I think the best way to go here would be to see how other stackexchange sites do their moderation and emulate that
I think setting up elections and councils (and other governance bodies) right off the bat will bring too much process to the entire thing. We already have some people who have been doing a great job contributing, perhaps we should Just Do It when we leave beta and pick a few people who have shown a good eye for even handedness and go from there.
I believe we should hold elections, where we solicit self-nominees and vote as per the standard upvote/downvote mechanism on the site.
The post will be marked community wiki, so that votes will not impact a individual's reputation.
Nominations would look roughly like this:
I, John Q. Public, nominate myself as a Ubuntu Stack Exchange moderator.
I is uniquely qualified for the position because I have done X. If elected, I will promote freedom, justice, and the Ubuntu way.
