Why are there two openings for moderators in the first place? Are some current moderators transitioning out? In other words, is a moderator elected for a term of office? If so, who are the moderators that are moving out and being replaced?

@DJohnson Moderators stay on indefinitely, as long as they maintain some activity and express a wish to remain moderators. As activity on SE sites grows, it is natural for additional moderators to be needed. Site records show that during the last seven years I have performed a large proportion of all moderation activities. I wish to reduce that substantially for both personal reasons and site-related reasons.

The latter reasons come down to believing that it cannot be good for one person to have too much influence for too long: new energy, new ideas, new directions are always to be sought and embraced.

Thx for the clarification. This is nothing personal but why is moderator status indefinite? In other words, why is there not a term in office as in US electoral politics where reelection into office is required? If one goal of these new elections is to get some fresh thinking and blood into the CV mill, wouldn't a more continual churn in moderators facilitate that? Also, and to the earlier comments about moderator 'grumpiness,' wouldn't a term also help to minimize such well-known behaviors?

@DJohnson Although I characterized the goal of "fresh thinking" as "site-related," let me clarify that that goal is mine. It's not necessarily a stated SE goal. I don't know why moderator terms are indefinite: that has been a feature of SE since the very beginning. But it's consistent with the philosophy of enabling community moderation: after all, active users--who are practically moderators--aren't limited in the duration of their interaction with the community.

meta.stackexchange.com/questions/984/… gives previous discussion of fixed-term or for life. The aim of an election is to appoint new people; candidates can say whether they are offering fresh thinking. As I see it one candidate is offering, or implying that they offer, distinctly fresh thinking; the others' platforms are more in terms of being willing to do the job.

FWIW, the grumpiness here is to me just surface humour; I am immensely more impressed by various candidates' records of service.

@NickCox I take it as more than humor: it's a sign of self-awareness and care for the site. Every day I battle "grumpiness" in one form or another because I care about the site and want it to work well for everyone, but my job consists in identifying the (rapidly accelerating number of) bad posts and doing something about them. That will make anyone grumpy. Those who recognize that fact are more likely to cope with it and deal with issues in a tactful, friendly manner.

@whuber Quite; as others have already emphasised the general attitude of the leading candidates is a good indicator.