user18: Given the age of our site - soon to be 300 days in beta - and the relatively early election of pro tempore moderators, it seems natural that situations may have changed, along with the makeup of the site itself, in the time since our first batch of mods were chosen. 
Would it be possible for us to start fresh with a new batch of duly elected moderators, seeing as how our constituency is far more seasoned and varied than it was way back when we three got promoted?
If possible, desired?
If both, let's get to it!

user254: 
Would it be possible ...?

I've seen new moderators appointed on another beta site: what happened there is that "they" (i.e. the Community Team, and not the 'community' of users) chose users who:

Visited the site daily
Were generally friendly, never unfriendly, communicated well
Had high reputation (from answering questions)

The community Team then 'reached out' to those users, i.e. invited them to be moderator -- with, so far as I know, happy results (they're both still moderators a year later).

If possible, desired?

I'm sorry you were criticized recently, consequent to your being a moderator here.
That recent criticism was, I thought, unreasonable (i.e. untrue) and shockingly rude.
You and Andrei both deserve your reputations as top-quality posters/users. Thank you for the time you spend helping with answers to people's questions.
I also think that you and Andrei have both been impeccable as moderators, never making a moderator decision I disagreed with.
If anything you may be too light-handed, allowing and not deleting some fairly low-quality questions and answers, but maybe that (erring on the side of permissiveness) is better at this stage.
In summary:

If we did vote, and if you were a willing candidate, I would gladly vote for you again.
Ditto Andrei
Otherwise, looking at the list of the top users on the site, I'd trust almost any of them to be reasonable

Given that both you and Andrei are competent, if we must lose one of you I hope we don't lose both of you simultaneously: i.e. that at least one of you will stay.
I suggest that the remaining incumbent should be invited to veto or select any new candidate[s]
because I guess it's essential that moderators be able to agree/work with each other, and the incumbent should be able to avoid anyone who may not easy to work with.

user143: This is an important issue. Lack of any timely moderator action back in January, when I was struggling with a particular highly opinionated user who was leaving comments criticizing certain schools of Buddhism around the site, was troubling enough to me that I pulled way back on participating in the site at all. I believe some of the comments I flagged were eventually removed; but it was clear that, at that time, no one was actively moderating on a regular basis and the site was beginning to feel like the "wild west" where anything goes. 
I probably should have voiced my concerns in Meta at the time. But I did not want to be critical of our moderators who surely need time away from online activities sometimes to focus on study, practice, teaching, retreats, travel, emergencies and more. And also, no moderators were around to read the concerns. ;-)
A reasonable option might be to build a larger than normal moderator team for this site to take into account the fact that Buddhists do need to drop offline at times to concentrate on their own practices which are not always compatible with online activity. And that's very important of course.
Is there anything that would prevent us from having 4-6 moderators on this site to ensure that daily concerns are taken care of without placing a burden on any one individual?
A team that included @yuttadhammo, @Andrei Volkov, @Crab Bucket, @ChrisW, and perhaps one or two users who have been especially active in the Review queue would be a great, strong team with plenty of room to allow for any one individual's need to be offline for a time. 
A question for our third current moderator, @Hrafn, it appears you have not been active for a very long time. If circumstances have changed and you are unable or unwilling to be active as a moderator, would you consider stepping down in this role to facilitate the formation of a strong active mod team? 
Thoughts? 

user7: An informal election like this would be highly unusual and probably unprecedented, but likely not disallowed. We can't run an official election (like Stack Overflow's) on a beta site like Buddhism, but we always honor a moderator's request to step down if desired and we take the community's input into account when selecting new pro tems.
If the rest of the Buddhism SE community wants to do this, we're fine with it, as long as: 

The purpose of this informal election is not to force an existing moderator out of office (we have other protocols for that situation); and
All three of the current moderators agree to this arrangement; and
The Community Team retains the final decision-making authority.

It's not very democratic, and it's not how elections work on fully graduated sites, but there's a reason the Community Team has more oversight on Beta sites. We keep a closer eye on making sure the site is growing and moving in a positive direction, and the moderator team plays a big part in that process. That's why we'd want to retain our final say in this (again, unprecedented) situation.
Buddhism SE is a unique community with specific needs, so I'll leave it to others here to hash out whether this is wanted or needed beyond our requirements above.

user18: Thanks, Abby for your answer. Personally, I'm thinking I would like to step down and only stand for "re-election" if there were not enough qualified candidates. Hrafan is MIA since March 1st, but Andrei is still around, if a bit subdued in his activity.
So, a full election might be overkill; if Andrei wishes to continue as mod, myself and Hrafan can step down (assuming Hrafan agrees) and new mods can be chosen with community support. Does that sound more precedented? 
Not that setting a new precedent is not tempting, but Buddhists tend to eschew giving in to temptation :)

user157: Even if unprecended I think it could be a good idea. Personally I would like to see 3 moderators who are active and who want to do the job. We are a different community to when we came out of beta. Some users have dropped out and some have come to the fore. We have a lack of questions but no shortage of people that answer. Maybe it would be a good idea to reaffirm our choices.
There is an aspect that makes Buddhism SE unusual. The moderators are likely going to be practising Buddhists and as such could and probably would go away on retreat perhaps for extended periods. This could leave quite regular holes in the moderation team so perhaps that makes it even more important to have the full set of moderators.
I personally would like Yuttadammo and Andrei to stay if they are willing and respectfully ask Hrafan if he might consider stepping down. But if we did have an informal vote then we could all express this kind of opinion.

18: <p>Given the age of our site - soon to be 300 days in beta - and the relatively early election of pro tempore moderators, it seems natural that situations may have changed, along with the makeup of the site itself, in the time since our first batch of mods were chosen. </p>

<p>Would it be possible for us to start fresh with a new batch of duly elected moderators, seeing as how our constituency is far more seasoned and varied than it was way back when we three got promoted?</p>

<p>If possible, desired?</p>

<p>If both, let's get to it!</p>
 254: <blockquote>
  <p>Would it be possible ...?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I've seen <a href="https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1679/34757">new moderators appointed on another beta site</a>: what happened there is that "they" (i.e. the Community Team, and not the 'community' of users) chose users who:</p>

<ul>
<li>Visited the site daily</li>
<li>Were generally friendly, never unfriendly, communicated well</li>
<li>Had high reputation (from answering questions)</li>
</ul>

<p>The community Team then 'reached out' to those users, i.e. invited them to be moderator -- with, so far as I know, happy results (they're both still moderators a year later).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If possible, desired?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry you were criticized recently, consequent to your being a moderator here.
That recent criticism was, I thought, unreasonable (i.e. untrue) and shockingly rude.</p>

<p>You and Andrei both deserve your reputations as top-quality posters/users. Thank you for the time you spend helping with answers to people's questions.</p>

<p>I also think that you and Andrei have both been impeccable as moderators, never making a moderator decision I disagreed with.</p>

<p>If anything you may be too light-handed, allowing and not deleting some fairly low-quality questions and answers, but maybe that (erring on the side of permissiveness) is better at this stage.</p>

<p>In summary:</p>

<ul>
<li>If we did vote, and if you were a willing candidate, I would <em>gladly</em> vote for you again.</li>
<li>Ditto Andrei</li>
<li>Otherwise, looking at <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Reputation&amp;filter=all">the list of the top users</a> on the site, I'd trust <em>almost</em> any of them to be reasonable</li>
</ul>

<p>Given that both you and Andrei are competent, if we must lose one of you I hope we don't lose both of you simultaneously: i.e. that at least one of you will stay.</p>

<p>I suggest that <strong>the remaining incumbent should be invited to veto or select any new candidate[s]</strong>
because I guess it's essential that moderators be able to agree/work with each other, and the incumbent should be able to avoid anyone who may not easy to work with.</p>
 143: <p>This is an important issue. Lack of any timely moderator action back in January, when I was struggling with a particular highly opinionated user who was leaving comments criticizing certain schools of Buddhism around the site, was troubling enough to me that I pulled way back on participating in the site at all. I believe some of the comments I flagged were eventually removed; but it was clear that, at that time, no one was actively moderating on a regular basis and the site was beginning to feel like the "wild west" where anything goes. </p>

<p>I probably should have voiced my concerns in Meta at the time. But I did not want to be critical of our moderators who surely need time away from online activities sometimes to focus on study, practice, teaching, retreats, travel, emergencies and more. And also, no moderators were around to read the concerns. ;-)</p>

<p>A reasonable option might be to build a larger than normal moderator team for this site to take into account the fact that Buddhists do need to drop offline at times to concentrate on their own practices which are not always compatible with online activity. And that's very important of course.</p>

<p>Is there anything that would prevent us from having 4-6 moderators on this site to ensure that daily concerns are taken care of without placing a burden on any one individual?</p>

<p>A team that included @yuttadhammo, @Andrei Volkov, @Crab Bucket, @ChrisW, and perhaps one or two users who have been especially active in the Review queue would be a great, strong team with plenty of room to allow for any one individual's need to be offline for a time. </p>

<p>A question for our third current moderator, @Hrafn, it appears you have not been active for a very long time. If circumstances have changed and you are unable or unwilling to be active as a moderator, would you consider stepping down in this role to facilitate the formation of a strong active mod team? </p>

<p>Thoughts? </p>
 7: <p>An informal election like this would be highly unusual and probably unprecedented, but likely not disallowed. We can't run an official election (like <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/election/6">Stack Overflow's</a>) on a beta site like Buddhism, but we always honor a moderator's request to step down if desired and we take the community's input into account when selecting new pro tems.</p>

<p>If the rest of the Buddhism SE community wants to do this, we're fine with it, as long as: </p>

<ol>
<li>The purpose of this informal election is not to force an existing moderator out of office (we have <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1461/7">other protocols</a> for that situation); <em>and</em></li>
<li>All three of the current moderators agree to this arrangement; <em>and</em></li>
<li>The Community Team retains the final decision-making authority.</li>
</ol>

<p>It's not very democratic, and it's not how elections work on fully graduated sites, but there's a reason the Community Team has more oversight on Beta sites. We keep a closer eye on making sure the site is growing and moving in a positive direction, and the moderator team plays a big part in that process. That's why we'd want to retain our final say in this (again, <em>unprecedented</em>) situation.</p>

<p>Buddhism SE is a unique community with specific needs, so I'll leave it to others here to hash out whether this is wanted or needed beyond our requirements above.</p>
 18: <p>Thanks, Abby for your answer. Personally, I'm thinking I would like to step down and only stand for "re-election" if there were not enough qualified candidates. Hrafan is MIA since March 1st, but Andrei is still around, if a bit subdued in his activity.</p>

<p>So, a full election might be overkill; if Andrei wishes to continue as mod, myself and Hrafan can step down (assuming Hrafan agrees) and new mods can be chosen with community support. Does that sound more precedented? </p>

<p>Not that setting a new precedent is not tempting, but Buddhists tend to eschew giving in to temptation :)</p>
 157: <p>Even if unprecended I think it could be a good idea. Personally I would like to see 3 moderators who are active and who want to do the job. We are a different community to when we came out of beta. Some users have dropped out and some have come to the fore. We have a lack of questions but no shortage of people that answer. Maybe it would be a good idea to reaffirm our choices.</p>

<p>There is an aspect that makes Buddhism SE unusual. The moderators are likely going to be practising Buddhists and as such could and probably would go away on retreat perhaps for extended periods. This could leave quite regular holes in the moderation team so perhaps that makes it even more important to have the full set of moderators.</p>

<p>I personally would like Yuttadammo and Andrei to stay if they are willing and respectfully ask Hrafan if he might consider stepping down. But if we did have an informal vote then we could all express this kind of opinion.</p>
