In a follow up to this question moderator involvement was discussed, and it was noted that moderators are elected, seemingly for life. While another post deals with adding additional new moderators, it seems odd that a site dedicated to the good government would instil such a policy. I humbly suggest that a term is established for moderator of 4 years, after which the moderator can be re-nominated and elected again for 4 additional years, after which they become moderator emeritus for life but can serve no more.
I'm not sure if the current crop of mods is elected or appointed, and it's really not directed at them personally.
Reasons for term limits:
- The site has been in Beta for what, 4 years? Maybe longer? It's likely to be a near perm condition. And as such, having unelected mods forever is frankly insulting to the freedom loving, intellectually curious, unruly heathens of the world. Unelected mods were supposed to be short-term.
- Let's face it. This is a contentious site, maybe the most contentious site on SE. It must be exhausting to be a mod on this site, and this would guard against moderator burnout.
- I also frankly don't care what Jeff Atwood's opinion is on this matter and have no idea why he would have the standing to opine on this community. Communities should be self-organizing and self-governing to our needs, not his preconceptions.
- As students and observers of politics, we should be aware of the pitfalls of democracies that have a single election, or worse, appointment.
- There have been observations that new blood is warranted from a curation standpoint.
- After several years, even long term users have differing opinions about what is in scope and what isn't about basic ideas.
- The site doesn't attract those working in the field, academics or polemicists. It is not a site for Political Scientists.