2 Notes on time zone added
source | link

The question is about moderating {TeX}, but I think an answer needs to start with the general Stack Exchange model. The approach is that most things can be done by people with sufficiently high reputation (the important lines are 2k and 10k, I think). In particular, members with reputations over 10k get access to most of the tools that the moderators do. The idea is of course that most 'moderation' is actually done without any intervention from Moderators.

We currently have a pretty small number of 10k users, although that will grow over time. At the same time, there are a small number of things that only moderators can do or see. For example, moderators can see people's registered e-mail addresses, and so can try to contact them directly if necessary. So there is a need for moderators to do some tasks.

At the moment, the number of things that have needed moderator attention have been pretty small. A number of these have been 'backing up' comments from others, or deleting 'answers' which are not really answers. The approach the pro tem moderators have taken has been pretty 'light touch', only using the moderator 'powers' sparingly. That's been helped by the rarity of times when they've been needed. I hope that this situation continues after the election.

I'd say that moderating {TeX} should be something that is mainly about being an active member of the community. So if you visit the site most days, answer some questions (perhaps avoiding the 'low-hanging fruit' to allow lower rep. users to answer), edit tags and typos, and comment on questions when appropriate, then you should consider yourself as a potential candidate.


Looking through the election posts given by candidates on other Stack Overflow sites, I see that time zones come up a lot. That's quite interesting mainly because I don't think it will be an issue in the {TeX} moderator election. The approach that's been taken by the pro tem moderators is to check on questions for moderation and in most cases to leave a comment in the first instance. The convention that's been adopted is to first allow the user in question to take action, and only to step in after some time has elapsed. The net result is that 'rapid moderation' is not really needed, and so the fact that all of the pro tem people are in Europe has not been an issue (at least I don't think it has).

The question is about moderating {TeX}, but I think an answer needs to start with the general Stack Exchange model. The approach is that most things can be done by people with sufficiently high reputation (the important lines are 2k and 10k, I think). In particular, members with reputations over 10k get access to most of the tools that the moderators do. The idea is of course that most 'moderation' is actually done without any intervention from Moderators.

We currently have a pretty small number of 10k users, although that will grow over time. At the same time, there are a small number of things that only moderators can do or see. For example, moderators can see people's registered e-mail addresses, and so can try to contact them directly if necessary. So there is a need for moderators to do some tasks.

At the moment, the number of things that have needed moderator attention have been pretty small. A number of these have been 'backing up' comments from others, or deleting 'answers' which are not really answers. The approach the pro tem moderators have taken has been pretty 'light touch', only using the moderator 'powers' sparingly. That's been helped by the rarity of times when they've been needed. I hope that this situation continues after the election.

I'd say that moderating {TeX} should be something that is mainly about being an active member of the community. So if you visit the site most days, answer some questions (perhaps avoiding the 'low-hanging fruit' to allow lower rep. users to answer), edit tags and typos, and comment on questions when appropriate, then you should consider yourself as a potential candidate.

The question is about moderating {TeX}, but I think an answer needs to start with the general Stack Exchange model. The approach is that most things can be done by people with sufficiently high reputation (the important lines are 2k and 10k, I think). In particular, members with reputations over 10k get access to most of the tools that the moderators do. The idea is of course that most 'moderation' is actually done without any intervention from Moderators.

We currently have a pretty small number of 10k users, although that will grow over time. At the same time, there are a small number of things that only moderators can do or see. For example, moderators can see people's registered e-mail addresses, and so can try to contact them directly if necessary. So there is a need for moderators to do some tasks.

At the moment, the number of things that have needed moderator attention have been pretty small. A number of these have been 'backing up' comments from others, or deleting 'answers' which are not really answers. The approach the pro tem moderators have taken has been pretty 'light touch', only using the moderator 'powers' sparingly. That's been helped by the rarity of times when they've been needed. I hope that this situation continues after the election.

I'd say that moderating {TeX} should be something that is mainly about being an active member of the community. So if you visit the site most days, answer some questions (perhaps avoiding the 'low-hanging fruit' to allow lower rep. users to answer), edit tags and typos, and comment on questions when appropriate, then you should consider yourself as a potential candidate.


Looking through the election posts given by candidates on other Stack Overflow sites, I see that time zones come up a lot. That's quite interesting mainly because I don't think it will be an issue in the {TeX} moderator election. The approach that's been taken by the pro tem moderators is to check on questions for moderation and in most cases to leave a comment in the first instance. The convention that's been adopted is to first allow the user in question to take action, and only to step in after some time has elapsed. The net result is that 'rapid moderation' is not really needed, and so the fact that all of the pro tem people are in Europe has not been an issue (at least I don't think it has).

1
source | link

The question is about moderating {TeX}, but I think an answer needs to start with the general Stack Exchange model. The approach is that most things can be done by people with sufficiently high reputation (the important lines are 2k and 10k, I think). In particular, members with reputations over 10k get access to most of the tools that the moderators do. The idea is of course that most 'moderation' is actually done without any intervention from Moderators.

We currently have a pretty small number of 10k users, although that will grow over time. At the same time, there are a small number of things that only moderators can do or see. For example, moderators can see people's registered e-mail addresses, and so can try to contact them directly if necessary. So there is a need for moderators to do some tasks.

At the moment, the number of things that have needed moderator attention have been pretty small. A number of these have been 'backing up' comments from others, or deleting 'answers' which are not really answers. The approach the pro tem moderators have taken has been pretty 'light touch', only using the moderator 'powers' sparingly. That's been helped by the rarity of times when they've been needed. I hope that this situation continues after the election.

I'd say that moderating {TeX} should be something that is mainly about being an active member of the community. So if you visit the site most days, answer some questions (perhaps avoiding the 'low-hanging fruit' to allow lower rep. users to answer), edit tags and typos, and comment on questions when appropriate, then you should consider yourself as a potential candidate.