Happy to agree to this; unfortunately, reviewing stats is in some ways almost as time-consuming as making them.
Usually the current process works by 1-2 people volunteering stats, me putting the best set on beta, the maker working through them with support from another 1-2 or so people, beta testing them and then releasing them.
We have sometimes, though not always, reused stats, or used old stats as a base.
Admittedly, one of the reasons for change is that currently there isn't a large amount of change in the game apart from this. Also, what may have been fun in previous rounds may now not be fun. Example, Round 11 (?) with the stats issue where everyone went Terran because they thought it was best in beta, apart from 1up who went Xan as they were the round-robin counter to Terran. There'd be a completely different approach if they were used again, and it may or may not be more "fun".
Stats "enjoyment" is a lot about initial perceptions from a relatively small subset of people in alliances who make race decisions, and how strategies differ in alliances, as much as anything else.
As fpr a new process, if we have 10 sets of stats submitted, I'm honestly not sure who would want to go through all of them and try and decide which were best (or least bad) and then make modifications as necessary. 2 is about my limit
