The real, essential problem that I see (that actually might not be able to be resolved, because of the underlying conflict of interest between company and community):
- Moderators get to their position via a democratic process, an election within the user community of a specific site on the stack exchange network. ( And note: "all" users are asked to vote. It is not like the moderator community decides for new padawans, invites them and later announces "they joined the force". )
- Yet, "firing" them is something that solely happens within Stack Exchange Inc.!
I understand that the company is running the servers, and I understand their need to able to act immediately to emergencies such as compromised user ids.
But for any other kind of depriving a moderator of his status, the user community should have a say. At a minimum by having all other elected moderators being able to vote on that. The idea that solely CMs working for Stack Exchange Inc. determine what is going to happen isn't convincing. Any more.
In the past, the moderator status was subject to decisions by Stack Exchange Inc. only. And when 99.99% of the users trust the company, why not?
But going forward from here: if Stack Exchange Inc. is serious about listening the community again, then a "moderator firing process" that doesn't include some form of community input is not going to regain the trust you lost.
I can see the company POV: the company paying for the servers specifies polices, such as the code of conduct. That affects their business, which in the end pays the servers. That drives the need to deal with conduct violations, especially when committed by moderators. But that doesn't dictate that Stack Exchange Inc. should be the sole party making such decisions in a unilateral way. And as said: we are at a point where we need real actions that make a real difference.
Thus my suggestion: step back, and find ways to incorporate the community into this crucial policy/process!
