Alright, we still haven't resolved all the issues for the site election (you know, the one happening in 3 days), but I think it's important we start nominating candidates to get things underway. So, let's do that: as per last time, a nomination and a second is all it takes, and you can also politely turn down such nominations if you see fit.
As far as the other issues, they're actually doing okay as I think most of them have been boiled down into multiple choice options that can be stuck on the ballot easily enough. The issue of mandating ideological balance amongst the moderators seems to have died down, so I'm assuming whoever was a proponent of it no longer feels too strongly about it. The only one that is still too abstract to vote on is that of general site rules/philosophy, though I would suggest a ballot something like this:
-Keep Josh's rules
-Go Kierkegaard-style-anarchy (which would also dissolve the moderation group, presumably)
-Some other options... (add or remove a few specific rules, say keep the civility rules but get rid of the swearing ones, or add more specific restrictions than just "civility")
But I suggest trying to keep that discussion mostly to the other election-impending threads: stick to nominations in this one. As was noted in the previous election thread, if we don't get underway soon than anarchy will win by default...