The MT has worked since its inception by the existing members choosing a new member that they were all agreed upon. Having an individual member removed by a forum vote, and then, presumably, the replacement being chosen by a forum vote upsets this principle. It is disruptive to the team to have one member removed without our agreeing to it, and then to have some person we night not think suitable chosen in his place.
The MT survey was a means to canvass opinion on things. The 'removal of a moderator' suggestion required a certain threshold of member signatures etc which has not been met. And we decide anyway that this is not a good procedure for the reasons given above.
I started this thread to engage with and respond to a suggestion that the MT proposed (within their survey) regarding the removal of a moderator by the community. The main thrust of my argument was that the mechanics of such a suggestion need to be based on the actual size of the community, and I provided numerical data which helps us to ascertain the size of the community through parameters for activity and participation (such as number of posts and last visit to the Forum).
A month after publication and no current member of MT has responded to this thread (despite it being a response to a suggestion that MT themselves had made). The post above from tobermoryx barely constitutes a response to the arguments made in this thread, but it is at least indirectly referred to.
Readers of my response would have observed that the main clause that I took issue with was the original suggestion by MT that 25 signatures would be required in a petition phase (in a week!) just to initiate a poll of the community. My objection is founded on the logic that the community is far too small to require numbers this high, and I asked MT to answer the question 'What is the logic for requiring 25 signatures?' - because it seems apparent to me that the basis for this number is merely a feeling that MT have, rather than being grounded in anything verifiable. Credit goes to Napoleon 1er on this matter for having the courage to concede this point
no real rationale for 20 ... just 10 is obviously to low and 30 seems high ... it's a personal perception ...
To further support the argument that MT's proposed numbers are highly unfit for purpose, we have now had numerous surveys and polls go round on this subject (and others) which show that - even with a relatively long timeframe of a month - these attempts to gauge public opinion manage to achieve a maximum of 30 members willing to provide their opinion either way. I would re-iterate the point I made in this thread that polls that manage to record the opinions of 30 members are less prevalent than unicorns.
So it is disappointing, and even a little insulting that tobermoryx's post appears to state that MT have decided against developing this procedure, including in his argument the statement 'The 'removal of a moderator' suggestion required a certain threshold of member signatures etc which has not been met'.
Let me say that it was quite clear that the MT's suggestion was indeed a suggestion - designed to canvass opinion (in tobermoryx's own words) - not an active process approved initiated by MT. So to state that the number of signatures 'has not been met' not only completely ignores the points made about community size in this response, but is a contradiction of the assertion that MT's suggestion was just a suggestion.
It is also worth pointing out the absolutely farcical nature of the situation where you have a clear majority of opinion, yet you are using the argument that there is not enough support. Imagine a party of 30 go for lunch, and for administrative ease the restaurant requires everyone to pick the same dish. The choice is Fish or Carrots. A vote of hands is taken, and fish wins 24-6. When the waiter asks what the ravel chose, he is given the reply 'We will have carrots, because there is not enough support for Fish'.
I won't take issue with the second reason you provided - that it is disruptive to have a team member removed. I wouldn't personally agree, but it is a matter of opinion. I will say that MT felt the idea had enough merit to publish a detailed suggestion and invite the community to respond, so it is a little odd to hear this argument after the suggestion has already been circulated.
Finally the third reason you have provided - that the replacement would 'presumably' be elected - is a completely separate matter (for the record I think public election is a poor idea) and one that has nothing to do with the proposal you made. How MT recruits their members has no bearing on the process for removing a poorly performing moderator. You cant reject Proposal A because you don't like Proposal B.
I imagine a sandwich competition, where I have entered a simple Marmite Sandwich. The judge dislikes my sandwich and says I am out of the competition. When I ask him why, he says 'the sandwich after yours was Tuna, and I didn't like the combination of Marmite and Tuna'.
I look forward to MT's full and proper response to this thread, and hope that you can actually engage with the topic that you created and asked the community about.