We are in the process of implementing a policy for "absentee moderators" — Any moderator who is not active on the site for a period of six months is subject to removal of their moderator abilities.

I mention this because Robin Chapman has not been on this site for almost a year. He has not accepted the Moderator Agreement and his contact information is no longer valid. Moderatorship is an elected position, so if an absentee moderator returns to the site, they may be eligible for reinstatement. Removing absentee members from the moderator listings will help us better determine where additional help may be needed.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ related $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Dec 3 '11 at 5:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm guessing we're going to have another election? The traffic to this site has increased quite a bit lately... $\endgroup$ Dec 3 '11 at 8:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @J.M. Sure, as the community grows, further elections will become necessary. But that would be a separate issue from this notice. The "absentee moderator" has already been accounted for so you're not actually loosing a moderator, pragmatically speaking. This post is more about routine maintenance than anything that warrants direct further action. $\endgroup$ Dec 3 '11 at 14:09
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ As someone who has spoken on these issues when they happened, let me say that this policy seems entirely reasonable. (If anything, waiting almost a year before declaring a moderator inactive seems a little slow: if someone doesn't show up even for a few months, they seem to have de facto abdicated the position.) $\endgroup$ Dec 3 '11 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ @cardinal:'Roles'-really? $\endgroup$
    – Quixotic
    Dec 5 '11 at 18:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MaX: Well, yes, unless Robert was referring to some new kind of holiday pastry that SE is giving out. (Doesn't sound too appealing, by the way.) But, the context suggested he wasn't. $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Dec 5 '11 at 19:09
  • $\begingroup$ @cardinal:Rolls and Roles $\endgroup$
    – Quixotic
    Dec 5 '11 at 19:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @MaX: I understand the differences between the two. My reading was that the intent of the post was to establish protocol (and "consequences") regarding the role of a moderator (as in their duties and obligations) and was not a reference to a roll (i.e., list of names) of moderators. I suppose I could be mistaken, and Robert or others are welcome to rollback my edit if I have misinterpreted. Cheers. $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Dec 5 '11 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ @cardinal Nah, I meant 'rolls' as in the listing of moderators. We're changing who's on the list... not their "role" in the site. I see what you were thinking, though. Edit 'rolled' back. $\endgroup$ Dec 6 '11 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ @RobertCartaino: Apologies for the (over)zealous edit, then. Cheers. :) $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Dec 6 '11 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ The Pillsbury Dough Boy has always been my roll model. $\endgroup$ Dec 7 '11 at 4:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Uh, no. Sorry, but a toll is a toll, and a roll is a roll, and if we don't get no tolls, then we don't eat no rolls." $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Dec 7 '11 at 9:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .