I like the idea of including decay, weighting the contributions, and semi-automating a regular (i.e. periodic) process. Maybe something like: every six months, the status of current moderators is...
I like the idea of including decay, weighting the contributions, and semi-automating a regular (i.e. periodic) process.
Maybe something like: every six months, the status of current moderators is reviewed by the community. People can make suggestions, discuss any holes in the moderator coverage, and highlight any mods who have made contributions (or conversely, any mods who have fallen off the face of the earth). They can also discuss making anybody who is not a mod, but is an exemplary contributor, into a mod or other such thing.
You could also include metrics in that discussion (post amount, impact of posts, posts that are tagged, etc), and look at them over time, too. Might be a bit of work to build a bot to drag all that out, but could be helpful in bringing a bit of objectivity into the mod discussion - not as a requirement, but as guidelines.
I like the idea of including decay, weighting the contributions, and semi-automating a regular (i.e. periodic) process.
Maybe something like: every six months, the status of current moderators is reviewed by the community. People can make suggestions, discuss any holes in the moderator coverage, and highlight any mods who have made contributions (or conversely, any mods who have fallen off the face of the earth). They can also discuss making anybody who is not a mod, but is an exemplary contributor, into a mod or other such thing.
You could also include metrics in that discussion (post amount, impact of posts, posts that are tagged, etc), and look at them over time, too. Might be a bit of work to build a bot to drag all that out, but could be helpful in bringing a bit of objectivity into the mod discussion - not as a requirement, but as guidelines.