That is great news! I personally think moderators should disclose their affiliations, but AFAIK it is not currently required at all. So, I would think one should applaud them for disclosing it, instead of crying “foul!”
He even admits, different from other moderators, have no experience at all with moderation
Why do you think that is a problem? If every moderator position required previous moderating experience, nobody would ever be eligible to become moderator due to chichen-and-egg problem.
(so by this aspect alone, by the moderation select criteria, today he might even not be acceptable at all there).
By which “moderation select criteria” exactly? The version 1.0 at the top of this thread mentions this requirements for moderators:
I see no requirement that one must’ve been moderator previously. Where did you see that?
As an outsider only having seen a glimpse of some inter-personal problems between various members, I personally doubt if extra 7 months (or 7 years) would make any difference at all. Unless you are privy to some information strongly suggesting that one side or the other is about to significantly change their views to accommodate other side, I’d suggest that it is probably the best that the process continues as outlined.
So, if you disagree with proposed moderators, vote against them; or if you agree, vote for them.
Note that the point of democracy is not to have your personal wishes fulfilled, but the wishes of majority (in this case, 80% of them - see the top of the thread). Except in rare cases, it practically always means someone will be unhappy.
Also note that moderators are not set in stone - if they are later found to be a bad choice, the three methods of “Health-checks” mentioned at the top of this thread show how to remedy that situation.