Stackoverflow moderator nominations are going along really well, but like last time there doesn't seem to be a due date.

Given that you've emailed every SO user that's eligible for nomination, and we already have 25 nominations with at least one vote (ie, nominated and seconded), I don't see a reason to have an open ended nomination process with an unknown (and undoubtedly sudden) closing.

Please set a date and time to officially end the nomination process and publish the final candidates.

Also please set a time (or even rough timeframe) for the Stackoverflow vote and final results.

share|improve this question

4 Answers

I would rather wait until it is clear that 2 or 3 chooses are liked by a lot of users and not disliked match by many users.

I don't care who gets it, provided it is clear they will do a good job and are one of the top runners from the voting.

share|improve this answer

enddate and time to officially end the nomination process

When it's done!

please set a time (or even rough timeframe) for the Stackoverflow vote and final results

When The Unpredictable God And Deleter Of All Comments (TUGADOAC) has made up his decision (6-8 weeks).

share|improve this answer

I think we should use a random number generator to determine the correct time to end the nomination process.

share|improve this answer

The voting system for Stack Overflow isn't well suited to nominations and elections; there are no penalties for voting, and therefore no opportunity costs. You can vote for me, but also vote for every other candidate, and not miss anything.

If we were to list the 'rules' of voting for moderators on Stack Overflow, here's what they'd look like:

  1. You can cast 30 votes a day.
  2. You can only cast 1 vote per person.
  3. You can either vote for or against a particular candidate.
  4. You can vote in a particular question as many times as there are candidates (+1 for the question)

Constrast that with how primaries work:

  1. You can only vote for one candidate
  2. Your vote for that one candidate implies you voting against every other candidate
  3. You only get one vote

The system for nominations isn't at all conducive to actually finding out who the people want.

The voting block is not constrained, unlike a primary and an election.

If there were going to be an accurate nomination process on Stack Overflow, we'd have to do the following:

  1. Limit a person to one vote.
  2. No downvotes can be cast.
  3. Votes must be cast during a single time period (1 day).

For an election, it'd have to be the same process:

X day lead-time (for advertising the election), and 1 day for an actual election, with the aforementioned rules in place.

Why?

Why would you have to do it this way? Well, if you didn't do it this way, there are the following potential holes:

  1. Voting according to popularity
  2. The candidates can vote against other candidates
  3. Individuals that just want to wreak havoc can go through and randomly upvote and downvote candidates
  4. The comment structure allows people to color judgment without recourse. Saying that I am 'abrasive' without any factual proof, can color someone's vote for or against me. But if I don't respond, then 'silence is consent' takes over and everyone thinks, "Wow, George is an abrasive guy." If I do respond, that creates its own issues.
  5. Voting up multiple candidates -- for one position, that creates confusion.
share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged
{"cc_re__cc_re__cc_by_sa_3_0": ["f=\"http://area51.stackexchange.com\" title=\"proposing new sites in the Stack Exchange network\">Area 51</a></li>\r\n                        <li><a href=\"http://careers.stackoverflow.com\">Stack Overflow Careers</a></li>\r\n                    \r\n                </ol>\r\n            </td>\r\n    </tr>\r\n</table>\r\n                </div>\r\n            </div>\r\n\r\n            <div id=\"copyright\">\r\n                site design / logo &copy; 2013 stack exchange inc; \r\n                user contributions licensed under <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"license\">cc-wiki</a> \r\n                with <a href=\"http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/\" rel=\"license\">attribution required</a>\r\n            </div>\r\n            <div id=\"footer-flair\">\r\n                <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" class=\"cc-wiki-link\"></a>\r\n            </div>\r\n            <div id=\"svnrev\">\r\n                rev 2013.5.23.1029\r\n            </div>\r\n            \r\n        </div>\r\n    </div>\r\n    <noscript>\r\n        <div id=\"noscript-warning", "\r\n</table>\r\n                </div>\r\n            </div>\r\n\r\n            <div id=\"copyright\">\r\n                site design / logo &copy; 2013 stack exchange inc; \r\n                user contributions licensed under <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"license\">cc-wiki</a> \r\n                with <a href=\"http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/\" rel=\"license\">attribution required</a>\r\n            </div>\r\n            <div id=\"footer-flair\">\r\n                <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" class=\"cc-wiki-link\"></a>\r\n            </div>\r\n            <div id=\"svnrev\">\r\n                rev 2013.5.23.1029\r\n            </div>\r\n            \r\n        </div>\r\n    </div>\r\n    <noscript>\r\n        <div id=\"noscript-warning\">Meta Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled<img src=\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-c1rF4kxgLUzNc.gif\" alt=\"\" class=\"dno\"></div>\r\n    </noscript>\r\n    <script type=\"text/javascript\">var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(['_setAccount','UA-5620270-4']);\r\n        _gaq.push(['_setCustomVar'"], "copyright__copyright__copyright": ["udgment without recourse. Saying that I am 'abrasive' without any factual proof, can color someone's vote for or against me. But if I don't respond, then 'silence is consent' takes over and everyone thinks, \"Wow, George is an abrasive guy.\" If I do respond, that creates its own issues.\n  5. Voting up multiple candidates -- for one position, that creates confusion.\nshare|improve this answer\n\nYou must log in to answer this question.\n\nNot the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged"]}