There's not a whole lot of information in the post in regards to how one or multiple new moderators are selected from the nominees, nor the process for how and when that happens. I'm assuming it would be a decision weighted by the staff team at Codidact, which it nonetheless should be, as the staff team is generally trusted to guard entry to a moderator position for those actually qualified. Understandably, it's hard and perhaps even counter-productive to lay out any sort of formal process at a point in time where there might not be enough activity for it to make a whole lot of sense. But I'd appreciate at least a little bit of reflection on that, in the post.

Ideally, the process of getting titled as a moderator is as much a decision that belongs in the community as a whole. An election might be the correct course of action, however, after 15 years at SE, we have seen some limitations and important drawbacks with the obvious answer to community democracy in the form of moderator elections. So it's definitely more intricate than makes it suitable as an immediate implementation at this point.

This is a good point: we failed to say anything about selection. This decision belongs to the community, not the staff, as much as possible. If we get one nomination and all the votes are upvotes, we'd just appoint that person (uncontroversial). If there are a bunch of nominations or some have negative votes, we'll need to do more work to assess the community's support.

I've personally been in favour of a much more light-weight process similar to that of wikipedia's RfA's, though I did just notice they've had a trial election due to decline in the number of RfAs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_elections#Rationale) meant as an alternative process while still keeping RfAs.

I don't know enough about moderation on codidact to make concrete suggestions, but I would strongly suggest a more flexible process that's ongoing with little upkeep rather than "add more mods only when there's desperate need for more". Elections on SE are also notoriously high overhead, so by the time there's a need for an election, it'll usually take weeks to months to actually perform said election

Zoe‭ thanks for the Wikipedia info. Their RfA process is the kind of lightweight approach I'd like us to take here. Basically: propose candidates, give the community a chance to weigh in with support or concerns, and then proceed. Unlike on SO, Codidact mods do not have access to any PII, so that's not a reason to limit the number. Enough to get the job done and not so many that they get in each others' way is a fine target to aim for.