Moderation by consent?

To be clear : I post this in my capacity as a member of this community, NOT in my capacity as a moderator.

One of the concerns I have in general about forums, is who gets to moderate them, this concern is born out of my own frustrations and concerns when dealing with, or just observing moderators on the various forums I've frequented over the years.

Somewhat, just to organise my thoughts before I continue I will list these concerns and frustrations:

• Feeling that the power has gone to the head of the moderator
  
• Feeling that moderators all club together, creating them and us
  
• Feeling powerless in the face of a moderator and rules that appear beyond my influence
• Downright corruption and lies from the moderator(s)
• Arbitrary rulings
  
• Feeling that there is luck involved in which moderator deals with a situation (i.e. different moderators can take very different views and very different actions)
• Moderation is usually imposed on a community without the consent of the community
  

It is often from these concerns, along with concerns about wanting an open, honest, free and welcoming place to talk that give me to say what I say when we as the moderation team, talk about what should or should not happen/be.  But there are some things that still niggle at the back of my mind and these are:

• Moderating by consent
  
• The community are the owners of the community and the community should set it's own rules
  
• Bad moderators, or moderators that wide sections of the community have lost confidence in should be removable by the community
• In order to ensure that cronyism and a culture of fear have less space to thrive, moderators should all be periodically re-appointed (or not) by the community
• Moderators who don't perform (perhaps they are inactive, just don't get involved in moderation, whatever reason) are removed from office

(Note: Regardless of anything else, I would recommend anyone not familiar with the UK principle of "Policing by consent" to read the short document on the other end of the "moderating by consent" link, policing by the public, not policing by the state.)

For the moment, setting aside all those above concerns, I am proud and happy with both the community here at large and the moderation team, and whilst there have been a small number of items that have left me with raising an eyebrow these have been far and few between and minor on my personal measure of importance.  I also want to say how much I enjoy being a moderator here, and the deep privilege I feel from having the opportunity to do so, and it's a role I hope I can continue in for a long time.

However, all those happy, good feelings and wants and desires, should not be the measure or reason I get to be a moderator, I believe there are only two things that should qualify someone to be a moderator:

• Ability and willingness to do the job
  
• Support (mandate) from the community
  

I post this to ask for comments and discussion: so discuss.