@Seth You seem to have totally misunderstand what I meant. No, I don't want money and I am not here for money (nor are other volunteers). The point which we are trying to make is: The money which SE gets through sponsorship of AU should also be spent in AU (not in stuff like SO For Teams or any other random stuff (which are not really important to our community)). Our community has been requesting for an archive answer feature, but SE didn't make any visible efforts about considering the feature-request.

@Seth "(minor) public figure" seems to be an overstatement. I would love to say what one of my AU friends said me: "We are colleagues and friends, we are equals." It's ok to have scrutiny to become a moderator but I want it to be consistent (why should just AU moderator nominees sign additional CoC, why not all SE moderator nominees?) In the past AU and Canonical were interlinked... but now, things are changing I suppose.

@Seth Let's not give SE all the credits. SE gave the infrastructure, but AU is nothing without volunteers.

@ArturMeinild Don't forget to tag me. Please read this: thenewstack.io/what-the-fork-amazon

@ArturMeinild I feel the downvotes are because of sponsorship from a company which doesn't respect FOSS and AU respects FOSS (it's just my opinion).

TBH, the "work alongside our community" phrase just feels like some marketing phrase.

Helpful information to readers: What goes into site sponsorships on SE?

@Oli So, you're gonna talk to SE staff about it?

Now that SE supports tables, it would be great if we can have a table instead of a picture.

Oli, Ubuntu Code of Conduct is no longer mentioned in the Stack Terms of Service. Please read this: meta.stackexchange.com/q/324001. Also, please consider editing your answer accordingly.

@terdon Also, I noticed this comment of yours: meta.askubuntu.com/posts/comments/29852

@andrew.46 Let me make it clear. My post has nothing to do with regarding how good or bad the Ubuntu CoC is (that's a subjective issue). My post is just about whether it is right or wrong to enforce Ubuntu CoC on AU users when SE themselves have removed it from SE ToS.

@terdon I find it as an additional barrier (which is also legal). A user who wants to become an AU mod should not be compelled to create a Ubuntu One account (for which they need to accept Ubuntu One ToS, Ubuntu data privacy policy, and Canonical's SSO privacy notice). Let us not come to a conclusion that the process is "perfectly good". Also, even if the user who wants to become an AU mod has an Ubuntu One account, they should not be compelled to sign the Ubuntu CoC. Also, even if they have signed the Ubuntu CoC, they should not be forced to reveal their Ubuntu One profile details.

@andrew.46 Well, even the SE CoC helps in maintaining the peace. What's so special about Ubuntu CoC?

Moderators in all SE sites have an active leadership role and non-AU moderators don't sign the Ubuntu CoC.