30

As I write this, there seems to be a general movement towards "don't need one", with which I agree. But if we decide not to, I think we should reserve the right to have one later in 2013 if it proves needed. That is, instead of saying "we don't need one now, the next one will be January 2014", we say "we don't need one now, so we won't have one now; but we'...


20

From the times when I am active, I don't think we need any more moderators at the moment. The average flag handling time is quite adequate. However, I know that when I am on (GMT+11) is basically the quietest time on the entire site, so your mileage may vary if you're on when the rest of the world is awake.


18

If our current mods are happy to continue and they don't see a need for an election then I don't believe we need one. The bunch we have now are doing a terrific job, so why rock the boat?


7

I should also note that as of right now, 1643 eligible voters have visited the site during the current election, 282 more than visited during the entire course of the previous election... However, a whopping 1137 have visited the election page, which is 663 more than showed up last time around. So there are more potential voters hanging around and more of ...


3

The reason for needing new mods is when we are lacking mods, and the current team is overstretched. IMO, if there are enough mods to do the job, elections are redundant.


1

Assuming January 2011 as a baseline: Jan 2012 had approximately 94% of the site traffic of January 2011 May 2013 had approximately 210% of the site traffic of January 2011 So the site has more than doubled in traffic since January 2012, so it seems reasonable that the number of votes has increased as well. Plus I believe most voting happens in the first 48 ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible