I’ll add my thoughts on the timing:
I do not agree that delayng the date would make the proceess more open or more fair. The submission requirements aren’t too daunting, and if a potential group doesn’t already have a general sense of their structure and goals, then they likely aren’t the right candidate for this round.
I agree with the sentiment that it will add complication to run these concurrently, and I initially agreed we should separate them.
After deliberating, I don’t think the alternatives are better when we net out the outcomes.
For instance, the perfect scenario would be to run the stream provider selection right before the elections, but that’s not really an option here. We can’t move stream provider forward, and we can’t push back the steward elections without an even bigger undertaking in a very short period of time.
Moving the stream provider selection to a later date could be an option, but it doesn’t really solve any of the issues other than spreading out the activity instead of having a surge.
All things considered I think it would be fine to have them concurrent. Any new stewards will be helped by the outgoing stewards. We tend to be pretty cooperative.
Also important is that there are small efficiency benefits for the delegates to have the voting and research batched.