25

During elections, the primary or election phase (depending on the number of candidates and open spots) begins immediately after the nominations phase closes. One consequence of this is that comments under posts on the nomination page are locked immediately upon phase change.

Sometimes, a user posts a nomination at the last minute/second. This prevents any kind of discussion about the candidate's qualifications, experience, or potential/planned moderator style, should they be elected. This is especially jarring when the user posts a nomination that may seem 'phoned-in' (doesn't include much detail about themselves as a moderator candidate), or that does not provide any answers to the community-determined moderator Q&A. It seems like a major flaw in the process to allow candidates to avoid this direct "discussion/debate period", if you will, from the broader community before an election occurs. Stack Exchange sites may not be the "real" world, but in most elections, the deadline for nominations for an elected position is well before the date/time when voting begins.

Thus, I would like to request that we include a waiting period between the nomination phase ending and the subsequent voting phase beginning, where nominations are closed but existing nomination posts can be commented on.

This waiting period would allow users to read all candidates' nominations and ask any clarifying questions (or share any relevant concerns) they may have about the candidates themselves or the contents of their nomination post. Neither of these are things that can be addressed/foreseen in the community-curated moderator Q&A list.

This waiting period would not need to be particularly long, I think... a single day would probably be sufficient.

5
  • I agree that last-minute nominations deprive the community of being able to discuss the nominee in the usual form, but I disagree that a waiting period is the best way to solve the issue. I'd edit this to be a discussion that simply talks about that (the first two paragraphs) and asks for ways to solve it, and put forth the idea of the waiting period in an answer. Oct 18, 2021 at 21:59
  • 1
    Also, I might mention that not everyone believes this to be a problem. Oct 18, 2021 at 23:21
  • 2
  • 1
    We should have a waiting period, not just because of the reasons you gave, but for a lot of other reasons too. 1 week of nominations, followed by an immediate election, is not enough time. It should all be stretched out much longer. Oct 19, 2021 at 19:19
  • 1
    Why not level the playing field even more - have a nomination phase where questions are not allowed - just candidates but their nominations forward. Then you have a question phase where no nominations are accepted and all candidates go through the same period of time of being grilled irrespective of at what point in time they put their nominations in.
    – ChrisWue
    Oct 28, 2021 at 3:50

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .