@ZacharySelk @AloizioMacedo Just popping into say that you two are a great start to the list of candidates. If you're who wins, I look forward to working with you.

@AlexanderGruber Thank you, that is very nice to know. I would appreciate working with you as well!

@ZacharySelk Glad to see you running as well!

o/

@user7530 at least you should say "will" not "is"; at the moment it's hard to tell, and likely it will always be difficult to be sure, but the risks regarding the dynamic are significant.

I mean in some way I don't care all that much because I'd be quite happy with the two that announced to run by now (and entertained the idea already before the delay). But if the subject is the general merit then I think you should also wait before making semi-definitve claims. Plus, in a way if there should be no significant advantage to the delay, it will have been a useless thing to do. So, the onus is on that side.

It's not like if nothing terrible happens it was a good idea to delay.

@quid could you please articulate these “significant risks”? I’m making a good-faith effort to understand, but the only harm that comes to mind is if someone (1) was aware of the original deadlines; (2) plan ed to run or vote; (3) cannot run or vote due to a real-world time conflict that did not exist for the original deadline.

Certainly there is reason to delay if there is no benefit, but I still struggle to see the harm.

@user7530 a main risk is a weakening of the believe in the integrity of the system. Further, if the delay between the announcement of the election and the actual thing is too long it leaves more time for "gaming the system" and collusion. An election being ongoing hems the usual operation of the site. Various activities (on meta espacially) come to be seen under the angle of elections.

A good electoral motion is short and intense. Not drawn out and lukewarm.

Further look at the question thread, there is not all that much going on. It's like with many lists, past a certain point it rather degrades. we are not there yet exactly. But then there are almost two weeks left for collecting questions. Really. What for? Not even much voting happens.

@quid Not to mention the fact that nearly all of the activity on the questions seemed to occur in the first couple of days, and is dominated by only four or five users (myself included, I suppose).

The initial timeline seemed fast to me (and still does), but I don't know that changing the rules in the middle of the process is a good idea. As @quid said, it degrades belief in the integrity of the election.

@AlexanderGruber @AloizioMacedo thanks for the kind words, it would be good to work with you guys as well

@quid ok. These are interesting points, though I don't think I agree these are very significant risks. Is there any evidence of collusion or gaming of the system in past elections? I suppose it's possible someone would try to farm 1000 rep with a handful of accounts in order to stuff the ballot box, and I agree that this is easier to do in three weeks than one. Is there any evidence this has happened/is happening?

I agree there's little point drawing out the question-gathering phase. My original suggestion was to dilate all the election phases.

@user7530 I think you got some numbers mixed up. 1000 is for being a candidate, for voting the threshold is much lower.