I've been thinking about this since we were asked if we wanted feather as a new mod but is in no way a reflection on feather as a proposed mod. As the emphasis of SZ is community and the mods only acy on the wishes of the community I have to question the process for appointing new mods. Using feather's proposed modship by way of an example the process currently appears to be thus:

i) the current mods agree a need for another mod
ii) the current mods discuss amongst themselves potential new mods
iii) they reach an agreement on who they find an acceptable appointee
iv) the decision is then presented to the community as an almost done deal unless there are any strong objections.

My issue with this is the community is involved in 1/4 stages of the process, the other 3/4 stages are made by a small group of people. As accusations of cliques are constantly being denied on the forum this process sits somewhat awkwardly with such a view.

My proposed approach (* denotes details to be set by the community)

i) the current mods agree a need for another mod
ii) members of the community are then invited to nominate themselves/nominate another member*
iii) each proposed mod requires a specific number* of endorsements in order to be considered for the position
iv) hustings are then held for a number of days*
v) the community votes over a predefined period of time* and the victor is the one meeting the criteria for the vote (minimum number of votes cast/received etc*)

Thoughts?

Deja vu! That's how I was selected at that place which shall remain nameless.

I think that's fair enough, though I have no complaints at all about the selections made to date or whatever processes were implemented.

I agree with you oioioi. It does appear that a new mod is decided upon (deal is done) before members are asked their opinion on whether this person would be suitable. Asking how people feel, is just going through the motions to make members feel as though they have a choice when in fact no choice was ever there.

Sounds like a fine plan... although I don't have an issue with how it currently works either. Look at the bright side, at least your (general you) opinion is being asked for at all.

I'm looking to make a good thing gooderer

I'm surprised this (oh-so predictable) thread took you so long oioioi....you must be losing your touch mate

I read the title wrong and thought you were proposing to mods

Round em up, put em in a field and bomb the bastards.

Disclaimer: I don't mean it

diamondgeezer wrote:
If it's so predictable why hasn't it been addressed earlier?

i-baster wrote:
Only indecent ones in chat.

dubmeup wrote:
You're flexible on the location then?

oioioi wrote:
And you couldn't be more surerer !

oioioi wrote:
You've been saving it up?

I think DG should pick a potential mod, then ask the person in a PM if they want to be a mod or not then have that person as a mod if they accept, why should fellow forum members even have a say in the decision?
Clue me in please

diamondgeezer wrote:
Not at all. It came to me yesterday with all the talk of cliques and a resulting chat in chat.

Rick wrote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism

Rick wrote:
I can sort of see what you're saying there Rick actually

Throw names into a hat, PM them to ask if they're interested...Actually no. Advertise the job position in a thread, wait for interested parties to PM you...Actually no. Ah fuck it!

oioioi wrote:
I don't understand what your position is.

irrepressible wrote:
Your 'episode' yesterday initiated the chat. I jokingly said that the only apparent clique on here is the "there's a clique and anybody who says there isn't is in the clique" clique, then I corrected myself by observing that the current format for selecting mods made the mods susceptible to becoming a bit of a clique.

Interesting that you encourage the current format which is open to being interpreted as a clique.