9

In about 6 hours, the nomination phase of the moderator elections is scheduled to end. However, in order for the election to proceed, it is necessary to have at least one more candidate running than there are slots. This allows for there to be actual voting phases, so that the community can actually show that they support the candidates who are running. Should there not be enough candidates come 20:00 UTC when the phase change would occur, the nomination phase will instead be extended for another 7 days.

We need leadership to come from within this community, the election can't move forward unless someone else wants to take on the responsibility. While the site is running quite well, we do need additional moderators. Did you consider nominating but decided not to for some reason? Now would be a great time to reconsider!

8

When we held elections a year ago, I recall that nomination meant self-nomination, we could not nominate others. Is this still the case? I have a few members in mind whom I'd be happy to nominate.

  • At this point they really need to head to the election page and fill out a nomination, as we can't continue while the number of candidates equals the number of open seats , it's a de-facto win for both in that case. You could prod someone that you think might be interested if you like :) But they really need to (officially) nominate. – Tim Post Apr 27 '15 at 14:02
  • 1
    You can't put someone else's name on the ballot, but you can try to suggest people to do so if you think they'd be a great moderator. Some sites have had "unofficial" nomination threads on the meta that they would use to show community support for candidates that would go on to nominate themselves in the actual nomination system. That's always an option, as is simply nudging people you know in the election chat or otherwise. – Grace Note Apr 27 '15 at 14:18
  • 1
    Maybe can tempt @Chris W Rea back into the mod circle. He must be needing a new PF&M t-shirt by now... – JohnFx Apr 27 '15 at 14:19
  • 1
    I also think @C. Ross might make a good moderator candidate. (hint hint) – JohnFx Apr 27 '15 at 14:36
  • 2
    I was thinking Dilip and morhan – JoeTaxpayer Apr 27 '15 at 14:52
  • 1
    And Ben's been active lately, he's a good guy. – JoeTaxpayer Apr 27 '15 at 14:53
  • Give me another year of good behavior. I'm too new, but interested. – Rocky Apr 27 '15 at 16:04
  • 3
    Wait, there's a t-shirt? – Rocky Apr 27 '15 at 16:06
  • In adition to the ones already listed, @Dheer was another person I was hoping would run. – Ganesh Sittampalam Apr 27 '15 at 17:29
  • 1
    @Chris W. Rea - Indeed. However my wife confiscated it as soon as it arrived and I haven't gotten a chance to wear it once yet. She steals all my good t-shirts. – JohnFx Apr 27 '15 at 23:04
  • 1
    Add @BenMiller to the list of people we are nudging to run. – JohnFx Apr 28 '15 at 18:20
  • 2
    I am flattered to be nudged towards standing for election as a Moderator, but since I am temperamentally unsuited for the job (fly off the handle too quickly, tend to make sarcastic remarks, etc), and many of my opinions don't suit the readers of this forum (e.g. my most recent answer on meta.money.SE) I will not be a candidate for Moderator, now or ever. – Dilip Sarwate Apr 29 '15 at 3:37
  • 1
    I had briefly considered it, but have recently fell off the radar, due to the sheer amount of work I've taken on in recent months. I might review the requirements and throw my hat in the ring, anyway. We'll see ;) – Noah Apr 29 '15 at 18:45
  • 1
    @Noah While we have our own writings, more geared information towards what it's been like within this community specifically can be found in this thread. – Grace Note Apr 30 '15 at 11:12
  • 2
    I would like to see @BrenBarn run for moderator. – Ben Miller Apr 30 '15 at 14:01
1

I would be very happy if we could get one or more good candidates who are willing to serve and have a proper contest - though there are several people who I'd vote for above myself if they do run!

Failing that, I would prefer that StackExchange relax the rule about extra candidates, or allow a "none of the above" option in the election to ensure that the election still involves a positive choice.

Otherwise, could we have a dummy candidate that doesn't want to serve and says so? In a sense they could fulfil the "none of the above" function as if actually elected they would just resign. We'd still need to find someone to do that, of course.

Finally, if we must have a real contest, how about cutting the available slots to 1?

  • 2
    An alternative would be to set a minimum number of votes a candidate needs to be elected. So if we had a 1 candidate election and that candidate didn't get, say 5 votes, we declare the election invalid. – JohnFx May 1 '15 at 13:31
  • Minimum number, and/or minimum percent of votes cast or people who visited the election page (so they got the badge). – Joe May 1 '15 at 19:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .