Timeline for Should we elect more than 3 additional moderators?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2011 at 11:34 | vote | accept | BinaryMisfit | ||
| Jan 19, 2011 at 22:40 | answer | added | Jeff Atwood | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 19, 2011 at 21:03 | answer | added | randomMod | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 19, 2011 at 13:20 | history | edited | DMA57361 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited title
|
| Jan 19, 2011 at 13:16 | answer | added | Ivo FlipseMod | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 19, 2011 at 13:15 | comment | added | DMA57361 |
Given you indicate there are three inactive mods that are being replaced, we can assume that after the election of three new ones we will be back to seven moderators (since looking at the about page, it currently shows seven)? So is this question more "is seven moderators enough?" or is it more "should we reward more than 3 users by making them mods?"?
|
|
| Jan 19, 2011 at 12:53 | history | asked | BinaryMisfitMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 |