user254: The user called "M H" posted the following comments under this topic.
I deleted them from there (where they were not on-topic) and moved them here (where it's easier to answer them if you want to).

Maybe please correct/ adjust some of the actions of the stepped down person, since doing so wouldn't any longer be treading on the toes of another moderator; Site could benefit from someone kindly & fair & genuinely knowledgeable re Various Branches of Buddhisms; maybe possible individuals could be asked directly re their interest rather than only asked to volunteer; &, asking persons to run in an atmosphere of negativism, downvoting, bias, discrimination, narrow viewpoints & capriciousness, wouldn't tend to be conducive to election of a good eclectic moderator to help this failing site


And maybe a good time to Improve the site to more Objectivity, Helpfulness, & Usefulness: more Objective about Benefits to Readers & Contributors, and: use of comments & alternative Answers rather than simply downvoting something because someone doesn't like it, which stifles facts & the site, and makes it a popularity contest rather than a fact source, with narrow views instead of accurate encompassing information; And reduce apparently contrived q & a, and reduce pandering to thinly veiled deliberate derogatory so-called-questions re Buddhism, since this is ostensibly a Buddhism Site


maybe it would be helpful if You opened a discussion question or two re site adjustment/ development; also, how to operate the chat section, which might help people to communicate ideas which aren't convenient to exchange in the q&a main & meta sites, might generate more site participation; with only a half dozen main contributors, maybe it will take a while to build up to where more moderators are needed; how about have the post be for one year: then can reelect etc; presently, about all R has to do is raise their hand to be elected; & encourage potential Mods to explain what viewpoints they would tend to do as Mods: Your openness & suggestions & explanations are very helpful to the site; And currently the site seems mostly about Contemporary Mindfulness Meditation and quotations from Pali writings & interpretations, with little material from other Branches of Buddhism: so should election simply try to maintain that, or encourage broader Buddhism scope: Could there be more than 3 Mods? or at least more minor moderation by low point people, because getting into detail on just one good, yet poorly presented Buddhism question, could take noticeable time


This seems a helpful question& answer set from 5 years ago: << Should/could we have four moderators? >> ; SSSD makes a very good point: it's just a Very big amount of material: there are Hundreds of Branches of Buddhism; maybe more than four: maybe eight or more, especially if the site picks up: And a flexible number; & maybe for one year Reelectable terms, and open times to have an election, which would make sabbaticals easier and allow for genuine specialists in particular aspects & areas, and could also improve the site

Also these comments were posted under ruben2020's answer in that topic:

If Answerer could explain point of view re discouragement /encouragement of downvotes rather than differing comments & differing answers people might be helpful: with points so scarce with participation so small, downvote harm further discourages participation: Buddhism is a lot different from Math or Superuser: sometimes opposite seeming answers are Both correct, from within respective Doctrines: if considering actual accuracy to be present, downvoting etc tends to become a popularity contest rather than objective presentation of Doctrine/ fact/ material; cf q which are clearly inappropriate – M H yesterday


also, helpful point re how much time investment it is: could there be more than 3 mods? currently the site is failing, yet if it began to be accessed more, time load could increase quick; & there's comparatively little participation by other than half a dozen members,& points currently are so scarce, much Lowerpoint Member Moderation tasks performed in the way that SE was set up seems very unlikely: currently, most everything is done by halfdozen people, & there are very few posts appearing on the site; also, how about Moderator policy re helping q&a that reads like 'Yoda monologue' etc


user254: 
Maybe please correct/ adjust some of the actions of the stepped down person

Which actions in particular? I previously tried to discuss with you in this chat one such action, which were two edit suggestions of yours which Lanka had rejected. I accepted one of those suggestions after you explained your reasoning, I don't know what more I can do, to "correct" that action, or what other action you want to corrected.
I also tried to suggest that the edit-rejection message (written by SE) is unnecessarily harsh -- see here -- but based on the voting (my suggestion was downvoted) SE won't be trying to change the wording of that message.

maybe possible individuals could be asked directly re their interest rather than only asked to volunteer

If there were several suitable volunteers, then the site might have an election.
If there was an election, then it would be normal to question the candidates (to let candidates know what's important to you, and to help you decide which candidates you prefer to vote for).
Currently there isn't a wide choice of candidates/volunteers, so that doesn't apply.

asking persons to run in an atmosphere of negativism, downvoting, bias, discrimination, narrow viewpoints & capriciousness, wouldn't tend to be conducive to election of a good eclectic moderator to help this failing site

Are you saying there's something we (or someone) should do, before we try to invite or elect another moderator?

And maybe a good time to Improve the site to more Objectivity, Helpfulness, & Usefulness

Wanting the site to be useful makes sense, in general.
But I don't understand your saying "we should improve the site" because it is a generality. If you have specific suggestions about specific questions and answers, you could make those suggestions e.g. here on Meta (perhaps a separate topic for each subject).
But your saying, "This site is failing, you should make it better" isn't specific enough for me -- perhaps it describes the goal (your ideal/idea of what the site should be) but not the method (i.e. what steps or actions we can take towards that goal).

reduce apparently contrived q & a, and reduce pandering to thinly veiled deliberate derogatory so-called-questions re Buddhism, since this is ostensibly a Buddhism Site

Again I can't make sense of this as a generality. If you want to "reduce" (e.g. delete or avoid) any particular questions or answers, then you may need to be willing to identify which ones you're referring to.
In theory, "thinly veiled deliberate derogatory so-called-questions re Buddhism" is a subject which should interest me as a moderator i.e. a type of question I might try to moderate. So are there any questions like that, and, which ones are they?

how to operate the chat section, which might help people to communicate ideas which aren't convenient to exchange in the q&a main & meta sites

In theory there's a main chat room which is always open -- https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism but people hardly ever use it so in practice it's not very useful (it's unused) on this site.
You could post a comment to someone like, Let's continue this discussion [in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism) and see whether they're willing (they may not be). An alternative is to use comments, if you do then after a while I'll probably notice and move all the comments into a new chat room.
SE's tools for chat are quite inconvenient, users can't easily create new chat room for new chats. The site was primarily designed for Q&A and not for chat (the Tour says explicitly, "This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.").
There's some help with operating chat rooms here: A guide to moderating chat

how about have the post be for one year: then can reelect etc

Perhaps that kind of thing happens when (if) a site has "graduated" -- when there's a lot of activity, many users, many willing to stand for election, etc.
I'm inclined to suggest we wait a year and then suggest an election (i.e. in a year) if that seems possible then, instead of trying to decide that in advance.

And currently the site seems mostly about Contemporary Mindfulness Meditation and quotations from Pali writings & interpretations, with little material from other Branches of Buddhism: so should election simply try to maintain that, or encourage broader Buddhism scope

It's the users (not the moderators) of the site who determine what questions are asked and answered.
As moderator I try to welcome or encourage questions from all schools of Buddhism, but I can't do much more than that. Perhaps you're mistaking what moderators do compared to what users (or "community members") do.

SSSD makes a very good point

I think Suminda thought each school of Buddhism needed its own moderator, which I disagreed with.

And a flexible number; & maybe for one year Reelectable terms, and open times to have an election, which would make sabbaticals easier

Holding elections is work for everyone -- i.e. for the existing moderators, for site users, for the SE community managers. It's possible to have too much of a good thing.

and allow for genuine specialists in particular aspects & areas, and could also improve the site

It's very nice to have genuine specialists as users when they're willing and able to post on the site. They needn't be moderators.

If Answerer could explain point of view re discouragement /encouragement of downvotes

Questioning candidates is appropriate in an election. This wasn't an election (yet), only hoping to find who and how many might be willing to do the job.
Also I think that as moderator I have little control over how or whether other users choose to vote. Questions about voting might be more for the community at large than for moderators, but "the community" hasn't been active on Meta for a while now.

cf q which are clearly inappropriate

Any clearly inappropriate questions should perhaps be closed instead of only downvoted.

how about Moderator policy re helping q&a that reads like 'Yoda monologue' etc

I'm not sure I understand this suggestion (I don't know what a Yoda monologue is).

254: <p>The user called &quot;<a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/users/19354/m-h">M H</a>&quot; posted the following comments under <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2534/254">this topic</a>.</p>
<p>I deleted them from there (where they were not on-topic) and moved them here (where it's easier to answer them if you want to).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Maybe please correct/ adjust some of the actions of the stepped down person, since doing so wouldn't any longer be treading on the toes of another moderator; Site could benefit from someone kindly &amp; fair &amp; genuinely knowledgeable re Various Branches of Buddhisms; maybe possible individuals could be asked directly re their interest rather than only asked to volunteer; &amp;, asking persons to run in an atmosphere of negativism, downvoting, bias, discrimination, narrow viewpoints &amp; capriciousness, wouldn't tend to be conducive to election of a good eclectic moderator to help this failing site</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>And maybe a good time to Improve the site to more Objectivity, Helpfulness, &amp; Usefulness: more Objective about Benefits to Readers &amp; Contributors, and: use of comments &amp; alternative Answers rather than simply downvoting something because someone doesn't like it, which stifles facts &amp; the site, and makes it a popularity contest rather than a fact source, with narrow views instead of accurate encompassing information; And reduce apparently contrived q &amp; a, and reduce pandering to thinly veiled deliberate derogatory so-called-questions re Buddhism, since this is ostensibly a Buddhism Site</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>maybe it would be helpful if You opened a discussion question or two re site adjustment/ development; also, how to operate the chat section, which might help people to communicate ideas which aren't convenient to exchange in the q&amp;a main &amp; meta sites, might generate more site participation; with only a half dozen main contributors, maybe it will take a while to build up to where more moderators are needed; how about have the post be for one year: then can reelect etc; presently, about all R has to do is raise their hand to be elected; &amp; encourage potential Mods to explain what viewpoints they would tend to do as Mods: Your openness &amp; suggestions &amp; explanations are very helpful to the site; And currently the site seems mostly about Contemporary Mindfulness Meditation and quotations from Pali writings &amp; interpretations, with little material from other Branches of Buddhism: so should election simply try to maintain that, or encourage broader Buddhism scope: Could there be more than 3 Mods? or at least more minor moderation by low point people, because getting into detail on just one good, yet poorly presented Buddhism question, could take noticeable time</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>This seems a helpful question&amp; answer set from 5 years ago: &lt;&lt; <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1474/should-could-we-have-four-moderators?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1">Should/could we have four moderators?</a> &gt;&gt; ; SSSD makes a very good point: it's just a Very big amount of material: there are Hundreds of Branches of Buddhism; maybe more than four: maybe eight or more, especially if the site picks up: And a flexible number; &amp; maybe for one year Reelectable terms, and open times to have an election, which would make sabbaticals easier and allow for genuine specialists in particular aspects &amp; areas, and could also improve the site</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also these comments were posted under ruben2020's answer in that topic:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If Answerer could explain point of view re discouragement /encouragement of downvotes rather than differing comments &amp; differing answers people might be helpful: with points so scarce with participation so small, downvote harm further discourages participation: Buddhism is a lot different from Math or Superuser: sometimes opposite seeming answers are Both correct, from within respective Doctrines: if considering actual accuracy to be present, downvoting etc tends to become a popularity contest rather than objective presentation of Doctrine/ fact/ material; cf q which are clearly inappropriate – M H yesterday</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>also, helpful point re how much time investment it is: could there be more than 3 mods? currently the site is failing, yet if it began to be accessed more, time load could increase quick; &amp; there's comparatively little participation by other than half a dozen members,&amp; points currently are so scarce, much Lowerpoint Member Moderation tasks performed in the way that SE was set up seems very unlikely: currently, most everything is done by halfdozen people, &amp; there are very few posts appearing on the site; also, how about Moderator policy re helping q&amp;a that reads like 'Yoda monologue' etc</p>
</blockquote>
 254: <blockquote>
<p>Maybe please correct/ adjust some of the actions of the stepped down person</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Which actions in particular? I previously tried to discuss with you in <a href="https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/112434/chat-with-m-h">this chat</a> one such action, which were two edit suggestions of yours which Lanka had rejected. I accepted one of those suggestions after you explained your reasoning, I don't know what more I can do, to &quot;correct&quot; that action, or what other action you want to corrected.</p>
<p>I also tried to suggest that the edit-rejection message (written by SE) is unnecessarily harsh -- <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/353666/139866">see here</a> -- but based on the voting (my suggestion was downvoted) SE won't be trying to change the wording of that message.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>maybe possible individuals could be asked directly re their interest rather than only asked to volunteer</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If there were several suitable volunteers, then the site might have an election.</p>
<p>If there was an election, then it would be normal to question the candidates (to let candidates know what's important to you, and to help you decide which candidates you prefer to vote for).</p>
<p>Currently there isn't a wide choice of candidates/volunteers, so that doesn't apply.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>asking persons to run in an atmosphere of negativism, downvoting, bias, discrimination, narrow viewpoints &amp; capriciousness, wouldn't tend to be conducive to election of a good eclectic moderator to help this failing site</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Are you saying there's something we (or someone) should do, before we try to invite or elect another moderator?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And maybe a good time to Improve the site to more Objectivity, Helpfulness, &amp; Usefulness</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wanting the site to be useful makes sense, in general.</p>
<p>But I don't understand your saying &quot;we should improve the site&quot; because it is a generality. If you have specific suggestions about specific questions and answers, you could make those suggestions e.g. here on Meta (perhaps a separate topic for each subject).</p>
<p>But your saying, &quot;This site is failing, you should make it better&quot; isn't specific enough for me -- perhaps it describes the goal (your ideal/idea of what the site should be) but not the method (i.e. what steps or actions we can take towards that goal).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>reduce apparently contrived q &amp; a, and reduce pandering to thinly veiled deliberate derogatory so-called-questions re Buddhism, since this is ostensibly a Buddhism Site</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Again I can't make sense of this as a generality. If you want to &quot;reduce&quot; (e.g. delete or avoid) any particular questions or answers, then you may need to be willing to identify which ones you're referring to.</p>
<p>In theory, &quot;thinly veiled deliberate derogatory so-called-questions re Buddhism&quot; is a subject which should interest me as a moderator i.e. a type of question I might try to moderate. So are there any questions like that, and, which ones are they?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>how to operate the chat section, which might help people to communicate ideas which aren't convenient to exchange in the q&amp;a main &amp; meta sites</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In theory there's a main chat room which is always open -- <a href="https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism">https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism</a> but people hardly ever use it so in practice it's not very useful (it's unused) on this site.</p>
<p>You could post a comment to someone like, <code>Let's continue this discussion [in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism)</code> and see whether they're willing (they may not be). An alternative is to use comments, if you do then after a while I'll probably notice and move all the comments into a new chat room.</p>
<p>SE's tools for chat are quite inconvenient, users can't easily create new chat room for new chats. The site was primarily designed for Q&amp;A and not for chat (the <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/tour">Tour</a> says explicitly, &quot;<em>This site is all about <strong>getting answers</strong>. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.</em>&quot;).</p>
<p>There's some help with operating chat rooms here: <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271267/a-guide-to-moderating-chat">A guide to moderating chat</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>how about have the post be for one year: then can reelect etc</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Perhaps that kind of thing happens when (if) a site has &quot;graduated&quot; -- when there's a lot of activity, many users, many willing to stand for election, etc.</p>
<p>I'm inclined to suggest we wait a year and then suggest an election (i.e. in a year) if that seems possible then, instead of trying to decide that in advance.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And currently the site seems mostly about Contemporary Mindfulness Meditation and quotations from Pali writings &amp; interpretations, with little material from other Branches of Buddhism: so should election simply try to maintain that, or encourage broader Buddhism scope</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's the users (not the moderators) of the site who determine what questions are asked and answered.</p>
<p>As moderator I try to welcome or encourage questions from all schools of Buddhism, but I can't do much more than that. Perhaps you're mistaking what moderators do compared to what users (or &quot;community members&quot;) do.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>SSSD makes a very good point</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think Suminda thought each school of Buddhism needed its own moderator, which I disagreed with.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And a flexible number; &amp; maybe for one year Reelectable terms, and open times to have an election, which would make sabbaticals easier</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Holding elections is work for everyone -- i.e. for the existing moderators, for site users, for the SE community managers. It's possible to have too much of a good thing.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>and allow for genuine specialists in particular aspects &amp; areas, and could also improve the site</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's very nice to have genuine specialists as users when they're willing and able to post on the site. They needn't be moderators.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If Answerer could explain point of view re discouragement /encouragement of downvotes</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Questioning candidates is appropriate in an election. This wasn't an election (yet), only hoping to find who and how many might be willing to do the job.</p>
<p>Also I think that as moderator I have little control over how or whether other users choose to vote. Questions about voting might be more for the community at large than for moderators, but &quot;the community&quot; hasn't been active on Meta for a while now.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>cf q which are clearly inappropriate</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Any clearly inappropriate questions should perhaps be closed instead of only downvoted.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>how about Moderator policy re helping q&amp;a that reads like 'Yoda monologue' etc</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not sure I understand this suggestion (I don't know what a Yoda monologue is).</p>
