--snip--
Anyway, please share our thoughts about this. Pmail if necessary.
--snip--

Two thoughts came immediately to mind: The first was 'Jonas's First Law of
electoral politics': What disqualifies a person for the leader's job is that
he or she wants it.

The second was about those occasional but lengthy barrages of non-vanagon
related inside jokes that you and Mike Miller indulge in, especially around
this time of year. Talk about wearing out the delete key.

I have nothing against you personally but I don't think that picking from a
show of hands is the way to go about this.

If we are going to have a moderator (and we should probably have a
moderator) I'd be inclined to have a slightly more formalized structure in
the form of an elected council or board (of say, nine people) who would then
appoint a moderator and an 'assistant moderator' (as a standby/fill-in) from
amongst themselves; those two individuals would then be disqualified from
being the head of council or board chair (*). This council would also set
policy (as in the charter) and perform various other administrative
functions that you find in most large human organizations.

The problem with even benevolent dictatorships, as was demonstrated so
clearly with Jim, is that they inevitably generate resentment in both the
governor and the governed. I think that recreating that situation is just
begging for more of the same problems down the road. Having a small
representative body should take a good deal of that pressure off of the
individual moderating. On the other hand, if he or she screwed up they would
have the ability to can them if necessary, which isn't possible with person
holding all the keys. (See * above.)

Cya,
Robert