Timeline for Split moderator election nomination phase into private submission phase and public commenting/discussion phase
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2021 at 20:29 | history | edited | bad_coder | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Ease of reading edit. Organized links into list.
|
| Oct 22, 2021 at 10:55 | answer | added | Journeyman GeekMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:51 | comment | added | Mihai Chelaru | @Randal'Thor Fair enough, I've edited it to controversies, as the votes on both questions are pretty polarized. I think it might also make it clearer that the goal here is to reduce controversy surrounding fairness of the nomination process or originality of answers. | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:49 | history | edited | Mihai Chelaru | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
changed "scandals" to more appropriate "controversies" as per suggestion in comments
|
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:46 | answer | added | TinkeringbellMod | timeline score: 15 | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:45 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor | Controversies would be a better word, yes. Scandal implies that something scandalous happened, but controversy could be either a scandal or people making a mountain out of a molehill. | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:44 | comment | added | Mihai Chelaru | @P.Mort.-forgotClayShirky_q Or controversies? Does the word scandal imply the allegations in question have been proven? I'm not trying to imply either party in those cases is guilty, just that these issues regarding some potential impropriety have come up and I believe this feature request could do something to prevent them coming up again in the future. Maybe this would have worked better as a self-answered discussion question in hindsight... | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:31 | comment | added | This_is_NOT_a_forum | "alleged scandals" maybe? | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:21 | answer | added | Mad Scientist | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:21 | comment | added | Mihai Chelaru | @MadScientist That's a legitimate point that I have seen raised elsewhere on election feature requests. Candidates need a certain amount of time after the questionnaire is finalized in Phase 0 to put together their nomination. I do think an argument could be made for splitting up the duration of the current nomination phase rather than lengthening the full election, as the existing nomination phase duration encompasses both the time it takes for candidates to submit their nomination and for the community to respond to it. | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:20 | answer | added | ColleenV | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 18:06 | comment | added | Mihai Chelaru | @rene Just trying to make them fairer in response to some legitimate issues of fairness that seem to have arisen in the current election on SO. I'm not sure how this suggestion compares to real life election nominations. I do find these issues distract from what would otherwise be a great election with a pool of great candidates, who deserve to be afforded the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like when they submit their application and the originality of their answers. Hopefully this solution addresses both of those problems, and benefits both the community and our mod hopefuls. | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 17:46 | comment | added | rene Mod | Are you trying to make elections fair, just like they are in real life? | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 17:45 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | You'll probably have to address the increased length of the full election this would cause. Or discuss how long each phase should be. | |
| Oct 21, 2021 at 17:37 | history | asked | Mihai Chelaru | CC BY-SA 4.0 |