4

When we have votes and discussions on Meta about aspects of the community like post standards, scope, close messages and other things that effectively require approval by the (diamond-having) moderators, it is unclear exactly how much support a proposal needs to earn before it will be enacted.

How do our moderators decide that a given proposal has sufficient support to be enacted?

What happens if a proposal is deemed to have sufficient support?

3

How do our moderators decide that a given proposal has sufficient support to be enacted?

We currently do not have a formal procedure in place, and I don't feel there should necessarily be one.

What happens if a proposal is deemed to have sufficient support?

Once we notice a consensus (as in no excessive down votes, nor obviously competing answers) we generally used to discuss it publicly in chat prior to acting on it. Personally, I prefer at least one other moderator confirming to enact on something prior to taking action.

I'll add a third: What happens if a proposal is deemed to have INSUFFICIENT support?

The posts wither and die, awaiting for somebody to resurrect the discussion when the time is right. It might be that we lose track of posts, so don't feel shy to bump a post on meta or poke a moderator when you personally feel there is enough consensus for a post to be enacted.

  • 1
    Thanks. Could you maybe elaborate a bit on how the enactment procedure has played out in the past? I agree we don't need a formal process, but it would be really helpful to have some transparency regarding whatever process there may be. – Christian Hummeluhr Apr 23 '15 at 17:28
  • 2
    @ChristianHummeluhr Fair enough. I will recall some memories with the fellow mods and get back to you. ;p As far as I recall, everything happened 'out in the open' though, ... no private discussions. Just public chat and meta posts. – Steven Jeuris Apr 23 '15 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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