All three of the candidates would do a great job. Given that, and basically for the same reasons that this election was bumped up to run earlier, can we have multiple winners?

  • 2
    +1 Very much agree. – Regmi Mar 26 '13 at 21:20

You could... Although, given there are only three people running I'm not sure you could call them "winners" at that point; maybe "fine, community-minded people who volunteered to moderate".

You don't really need three more moderators though. You definitely need one; you might need two, and we can always ask the runner-up here if he wants to help if that turns out to be the case. But three new mods - 7 total - seems excessive.

That's not to knock the qualifications of anyone running in this election, btw - but it does mean you'll have to make a choice: who do you think is the best of the best?

  • 3
    Of the 4 mods that we have, 1 hasn't visited the site at all in 5-6 weeks, and another in 2 weeks. And one who is super busy with a work project and while he does actively visit the site, really doesn't have time currently. So effectively we have one overworked active mod. Plenty of high rep active users to do the 90%, but the other 10% is all on one guy at the moment. – MikeW Mar 27 '13 at 4:53
  • 3
    I should really add that all of the above mentioned mods have contributed greatly to the site, not meaning to knock them at all, just pointing out the current reality that they're busy and not very active at the moment – MikeW Mar 27 '13 at 8:17
  • 2
    Can we demote some of the existing mods that don't mod? What's the point of calling them such if they don't act? – dpollitt Apr 1 '13 at 20:47
  • 2
    I guess we can see how it goes with John. If we still need help, we could revisit this. – jrista Apr 3 '13 at 0:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .