Timeline for 2015 Moderator Election Q&A - Question Collection
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| Aug 30, 2015 at 6:59 | comment | added | Reaces | @GraceNote I edited the questions a bit, putting the two about how the last election platform went together, and the one about how the aftermath went seperately. | |
| Aug 30, 2015 at 6:58 | history | edited | Reaces | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Trying to format questions
|
| Aug 28, 2015 at 15:39 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | I'm probably going to try and split this question into multiple chunks for the Q&A. Not entirely sure how I'll split it yet, so I'll be thinking on it over the weekend. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 23:27 | comment | added | Andrew B | I repeatedly asked for clarification on this comment and never got it. I have very little confidence in the role of super moderators. I'm not going to further speculate why the accusation of lying was never touched on in the post mortem or comments, other than to say that I'd certainly never put myself in a position to be judged in this fashion. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 19:52 | comment | added | Wesley | If multiple, long-drawn-out threads of discussion complete with linked evidence, wasn't enough to quell the Community Team's decision making tide, I doubt an impromptu live chat during work hours would do much more than waste billable hours. The proverbial "Let's do lunch" after a kangaroo court. I think it's best left alone at this time since I suspect nothing will change in the favor of the Server Fault community. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 19:30 | comment | added | Jon Ericson Staff | Feel free to use the election chat. I've stepped in over there and am available to be corrected there. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 19:26 | comment | added | Rob Moir | A big part of our decision was that the moderator acted on their own and did not communicate with the community. - Hey @JonEricson you misspelled "A moderator communicated with the community but for some reason we over-looked that and fired him unilaterally and no-one explained that properly to the community because SO staff don't give a flying f*ck at a rolling donut about the SF community and only ever show up to cause drama." -- you're welcome. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 18:58 | comment | added | user9517 | @JonEricson It was directed at you in particular but you're right there are a number of employees who only turn up when there is a bit of a flap on fan the flames or wail about how how bad things are, promise to do more then fade into the background until the next flap. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 18:12 | comment | added | Wesley | @JonEricson I believe that's one of the contentions at play: "the moderator acted on their own and did not communicate with the community." That is an inaccurate statement on at least two different points. But, I suppose it's stagnant water under the bridge, since that inaccuracy was largely passed over during the heat of the debacle. ツ | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 15:51 | comment | added | Jon Ericson Staff | @Iain: I can't tell if you are using "you" in the singular (in which case, fair, but tangential point) or in the plural. Either way, I think there's plenty of blame to be assigned to our team. The point of the above comment was to help people understand our motivations a bit better. We don't always make the best (or even particularly good) decisions. But believe it or not, the people who are listed on the answer I linked to really care about guiding communities to be as productive as possible. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 15:26 | comment | added | user9517 |
Hey @Jon, I'd like to invite you to review your interactions with this community ... Yeah, you only ever turn up when there is drama and add petrol to it.
|
|
| Aug 26, 2015 at 14:58 | comment | added | Reaces | @JonEricson I would like to remind the community team about Katherine's remarks about post election comments last year. It caused some reactions in the ensuing back and forth that further divided SO from some of the SF regulars, that was unfortunate to see. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 13:56 | comment | added | Jon Ericson Staff | @Hyppy: I don't know if this makes it better or worse, but the decision to remove a moderator elected last year was made entirely by the Community Team and had nothing at all to do with "the bottom line". It was a difficult decision to make because we really do value democratically elected moderators. (Not many sites and none of our scale allow users to become elected moderators.) A big part of our decision was that the moderator acted on their own and did not communicate with the community. We remove elected moderators rarely and reluctantly. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 13:14 | comment | added | Rob Moir | I don't know why anyone would want to be a moderator, now. - I know I'm not even the slightest little bit interested now despite having stood in the past. | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 16:44 | comment | added | Hyppy | The elephant you dragged in is completely relevant. The interests of the management team and board of directors of Stack Exchange are the bottom line, and any moderator who wishes to be elected is only doing their (unpaid, volunteer) work at the pleasure of the overlords. | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 14:37 | comment | added | Reaces | @DeerHunter I thought the quoted slogan was enough to exemplify the rhetoric that was used last year. I'll think about how to rewrite the question, if you have a suggestion feel free! | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 14:35 | comment | added | Deer Hunter | The rhetoric subquestion isn't clear. Please consider re-writing it. | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 13:42 | history | answered | Reaces | CC BY-SA 3.0 |