I designed this after discussions with K900, Philip and other members of the community. My main driver for writing this proposal is that I don't think the SC should directly select the members of the moderation team for numerous reasons: the most obvious of course is that it will with high probability become a evaluation of each candidate politics with everyone trying to steer the composition towards their conception to a politically diverse moderation team. This will end up with endless bikeshedding on people selection, which I don't want. The other (and not less important) reason is that I feel we are not fit to evaluate the qualities necessary to be a good moderator, having for the most of us very low experience in the moderation job. Additionally, my intention behind this proposal is to put all the stakeholders of the "moderation crisis" back at the discussion table and to give them incentives to find a common ground for the long term stability of the relationship between SC<>moderation.

• We create an interim bootstrap moderation team composed of old moderators (from the team the resigned but also older ones). I was told finding such old moderators agreeing to do the job would be possible.

• The bootstrap moderation team is in charge of the moderation during its existence.

• The bootstrap moderation team has an existence limited in time (4-6 months is s good baseline I think).

• The main goal of the bootstrap moderation team is to perform the recruitment of moderators for the new moderation team.

• The newly created moderation team may contain at most one member of the bootstrap moderation team for transmission of knowledge.

• Recruitment can be constrained by some guidelines that we decide beforehand: I think for example asking for geographic representativity is reasonable.

• SC may not impose candidates to the new moderation team, but SC must approve the final moderation team as a whole.

• The bootstrap moderation team is also tasked with the creation of a document summarizing the « moderation philosophy », that explains how moderation is carried out in the community, with which goals, what parts of it is human judgement, what is objective, how decisions are taken, etc. (essentially similar to the slides from K900 in terms for contents) in order to be transparent about what moderation is and what the goals are. Document will be approved by SC, and may be updated in the future by agreement of SC + moderation team. Document is not a new CoC nor is it a « rulebook ».

• Inspired by the Coq/Roq community, we put in place a regular (every 6 month) check-in meeting between moderation team and SC where moderation team can present major action points and estimated state of the community in terms of conflicts, without entering in the specifics of decisions. This allows SC to follow long term trends and maintain oversight of moderation team; eventually inflect policies in needed but on the long run.

• Excepted mentioned oversight, SC reaffirms in a statement the autonomy of the moderation team and its unwillingness to intervene in punctual decisions.