I'm really torn between Westside and Wrzl now

@Wrzlprmft and @Westside do either of you have plans and a vision for GDSE going forward? An idea of how to promote voting, help new users, and otherwise better the community?

@Ryan: Me too. I think @Wrzlprmft is perfectly capable of doing the job every bit as well as I would.

@WELZ Why'd you withdraw?

(Personal opinion) I think @Westside is more committed.

@ZachSaucier "lack of experience"

I read that, but that isn't really a good answer

there were 3 other people that were more qualified than me (almost everyone will agree), so I didn't bother.

That seems unfair to people who would have voted for you to me

I wouldn't say that I have any kind of master plan for the future of the site. I'm assuming that in the first instance I'll be providing an extra pair of hands for the day to day work, freeing up the more experienced mods to tackle more 'big picture' stuff. I'm still learning about the site myself so I'm not about to claim that I can fix and improve everything.

people Can still vote for me - it just says I withdrew....

doesn't mean anything lol

then Wrz said that if there wern't 3 candidates it would get pushed off, so I put it back

If possible, I recommend not "withdrawing" because there's no real purpose in doing so

@ZachSaucier I can ask the SE people to edit my thing if you want. I still have it saved in a google doc

and then put back my QnA answers

@WELZ I would've voted for you. I may have been the only one to vote for you but I would've. Now I'm torn. In any case I hope you'll continue to grow and participate in the site

@Ryan Well it's good to know I had a supporter out there, very encouraging.

@Ryan I outlined it a bit in my answer to question 2 of the questionnaire: I would try to change our attitude and adjusting our scope to be more inclusive regarding what is perceived as low-quality questions. There are too many questions that are perfectly good or can easily be made so landing in the close queue (most of them as tech support, which they clearly aren’t). This is harmful on many levels and has to stop.

@Wrzlprmft thanks for the feedback on my meta post about that :D

@Ryan what's the specific concern?

@Shog9 well we now have Welz as a nominated candidate without any interest in being one and just an empty nomination. While Wrzl seems only partially interested opening his with "I am running for moderator to ensure that there are three candidates"

meanwhile @joojaa seems concerned that switching two of our members over to mod will lower the number of active members with the ability to close vote too much and is wondering if only 1 new mod should be appointed

related: graphicdesign.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3180/52050

@Ryan I can sympathize with that concern.

However...

...mods can still close. Not vote of course, but most certainly close.

Which tends to be a good reminder that voting is only really intended to slow things down; it does not in and of itself represent consensus.

If folks are concerned about that, earning the ability to vote themselves - and using it - is the proper response.

The more moderation that is done by folks who've earned that right by virtue of their contributions, the less that moderators have to do.

"We have too few user-moderators - we can't have mods to pick up the slack" is not an effective argument.

(cc @GraceNote, since you got pinged above)

Sidenote: if you ask me the close queues are so full and many possible reviewers do not participate in it anymore, because there is so much stuff in there that does not belong there …

@Wrzlprmft on that note... It only takes three reviewers (or one mod) to kick a question out of close review. So, might be worth reminding folks that they have that option.