The issue of holding fair elections is largely technical. The long-term solution will likely come from us. Still, bring up these issues in meta. There is a lot of room for innovation. Discussing the criteria of a great moderator is important and picking out potential candidates is a great way to introduce outstanding contributors to your community. And we are completely open to appointing temporary Moderators when someone’s contribution makes them a standout choice for your community’s human exception handler.
These are not permanent positions; after the site graduates, we'll hold an election to decide the permanent moderators.
So, who should we appoint as our pro tempore moderators?
Some ground rules (taken from past pro tem nominations on other beta sites):
Feel free to nominate whomever you think is deserving, including yourself:
Self nominations are okay, and even encouraged. Most sites have not had sufficient time for many users to stand out. Self nomination is simply a way to say, “I'm interested. Let my record speak for itself.”
If someone else nominates you, please indicate whether you accept your nomination or not. This makes it easier for the Stack Exchange staff to build their list of candidates.
Voting on your favorite (or least favorite) candidates is also helpful, although the top-voted candidates are not automatically chosen as if it were an election.