Moderation is not reserved to moderators. Stack Exchange is a prime example of this: even though user contributions retain their authorship, moderation activities such as editing and deleting other people's contributions are not reserved to the handful of users called “moderators”, but can be performed by any sufficiently experienced user. On Stack Exchange, one set of moderation tools is called “moderator tools”, and this isn't the one that's reserved to the moderators. Even “Moderation” would be an improvement on the name “Moderators”.
There's more to making a community work than moderation. Our description currently reads “question and answer site for community managers, administrators, and moderators”. Giving moderators sole billing is awkward. Furthermore, the description focuses on a few technical roles, but a community is the sum of its members. Many an organization is effectively run by a few users who may not have any formal title — that guy who knows everybody, the person that people go to when they want to resolve an argument… Activities like promotion (at least in a volunteer organization) and more generally engaging (fellow) participants, content curation or debating policies are not limited to a particular role. This site isn't about a particular role, it's about the principles of doing stuff together.
This site is not Stack Exchange Moderators. We've had many Stack Exchange moderators drift towards this site thinking it would be, even during the beta. Users complaining about Stack Exchange moderators or moderation have started to find our chatroom. But the site about Stack Exchange modera
torstion is Meta Stack Exchange. This site is a Stack Exchange site about… moderation, among other topics.
On the same vein, the URL https://communitybuilding.stackexchange.com/ used to point to an information site for Stack Exchange moderators. This is another obvious source of confusion. Let's leave https://communitybuilding.stackexchange.com/ for Stack Exchange moderators and use a different, less confusing URL for this site.
All in all, Moderators is a bad name.
I like AviD's proposal: Community Building. Community building encompasses all aspects of making a community work; moderation (if any) is clearly just one of the many aspects. It's all about getting people to act together; moderators are the oil in the cogs, but we emphasize the cogs.
I'm not so fond of Community Management or Community Managers. Management suggests that this site is only about the top of the hierarchy. Managers is as bad as Moderators in restricting to a particular role.
Alternatively, I could see Communities. On the plus side, it's short. On the other hand, it is a bit vague.