Congratulations to the newly appointed moderators and to the preexisting one, which now will have some help.

Thus said, and since this question has the discussion tag (so I assume that this post could/should be more than just an announcement), I want to express my dissatisfaction about how the election process proceeded and specially how it ended. I think I shared a little bit here and there in a couple comments, which may get harder to find over time, so I'll bring my thoughts here.

I can't help thinking that instead of addressing the root cause of users not being engaged (in Meta in general, in the election process in particular) we just took a shortcut to check all the checkboxes that needed to be checked for this process in particular and claimed victory. The election came to a close, we have enough mods and everything seems to be as it was supposed to be. But I think that how you get to the results matters.

I wanted also to comment on one of JNat's response comments to Fedorqui's own comments about the election process:

[...] while I recognize your concern surrounding members with not a lot of participation getting the diamond: I think we can both agree that that is definitely preferable over the alternative (which is no mods at all and the site potentially facing closure), no?

I disagree with the reasoning behind that statement, because I have heard it (a lot) before in the stack, in the way of

"The site needs to graduate and then we'll have more visits, more (high quality) questions, more participation, etc."

which leads me to believe that there is a big difference in what we community users perceive to be a cause and what we perceive to be a consequence in this stack in particular.

Also, I don't think the stack would dissapear (things would continue as they are), based on these comments on the election process.

I think that we are assigning moderators as a way of making (inviting? forcing?) a few users do the work that we would like regular users to do (not exclusively but mainly, engaging the community).

It seems that we don't have that many users interested in discussing in Meta the problems of the stack (and low participation/engagement is perceived as the main issue/challenge for this stack for all the candidates, according to their responses to the questionnaire). Nevertheless we shrug our shoulders when the election process ends up funny and move on.

We don't talk about why the low engagement for the election. We just appoint mods and... What? Hope that they will brainstorm something to engage the community?

Maybe it's just me, but my concern is not just that we are putting the cart before the horse. We might be doing things that prevent us from seeing and acting upon these problems and that might help the apathy, disengagement and dissatisfaction that now reigns among this community. Not a good recipe for the long run.

Congratulations to the newly appointed moderators and to the preexisting one, which now will have some help.

Thus said, and since this question has the discussion tag (so I assume that this post could/should be more than just an announcement), I want to express my dissatisfaction about how the election process proceeded and specially how it ended. I think I shared a little bit here and there in a couple comments, which may get harder to find over time, so I'll bring my thoughts here.

I can't help thinking that instead of addressing the root cause of users not being engaged (in Meta in general, in the election process in particular) we just took a shortcut to check all the checkboxes that needed to be checked for this process in particular and claimed victory. The election came to a close, we have enough mods and everything seems to be as it was supposed to be. But I think that how you get to the results matters.

I wanted also to comment on one of JNat's response comments to Fedorqui's own comments about the election process:

[...] while I recognize your concern surrounding members with not a lot of participation getting the diamond: I think we can both agree that that is definitely preferable over the alternative (which is no mods at all and the site potentially facing closure), no?

I disagree with the reasoning behind that statement, because I have heard it (a lot) before in the stack, in the way of

"The site needs to graduate and then we'll have more visits, more (high quality) questions, more participation, etc."

which leads me to believe that there is a big difference in what we community users perceive to be a cause and what we perceive to be a consequence in this stack in particular.

Also, I don't think the stack would dissapear for a failed election (things would continue as they are), based on these comments on the election process and our previous question about this specific situation.

I think that we are assigning moderators as a way of making (inviting? forcing?) a few users do the work that we would like regular users to do (not exclusively but mainly, engaging the community).

It seems that we don't have that many users interested in discussing in Meta the problems of the stack (and low participation/engagement is perceived as the main issue/challenge for this stack for all the candidates, according to their responses to the questionnaire). Nevertheless we shrug our shoulders when the election process ends up funny and move on.

We don't talk about why the low engagement for the election. We just appoint mods and... What? Hope that they will brainstorm something to engage the community?

Maybe it's just me, but my concern is not just that we are putting the cart before the horse. We might be doing things that prevent us from seeing and acting upon these problems and that might help the apathy, disengagement and dissatisfaction that now reigns among this community. 

Not a good recipe for the long run.