I have long supported making a second run. Due to the answer chaining nature I think the challenge would be very interesting if we pushed it in a different path.
However I don't like the proposed rule changes. If we look first at
Languages must have a freely downloadable crossplatform interpreter that can be run from the command line
I think this is a good idea. Contributing to the polyglot is hard because a lot of the entries are system specific or non-free. However we already had a rule for this in the challenge and it was lifted only after the challenge officially ended. So this doesn't represent an addition only a change
And if we look at the original wording:
As this challenge requires other competitors to post in the same languages you are, you can only use languages with a free implementation (much as though this were a cops-and-robbers contest).
The change does not seem to me to be a positive. Besides the implementation with interpreter which I will assume is unintentional (surely you are not proposing compiled languages to be banned). The existing rules link to a established consensus on how to approach the issue. I think it's better to go with what the community has agreed upon rather than something ad hoc.
The other rule:
Programs must terminate in less than five seconds.
I don't think is an improvement either.
For one I don't think there is a big issue with languages taking more than five seconds to run. To test all 300 odd languages does take a while, but the bulk of that is just because you are running 300 programs in 300 different languages. In order for the test handler to be fast the time limit would have to be very low. Likely below the spin up time on a lot of interpreters and compilers.
A long test time for high numbers is just going to be a reality for the challenge.
On top of that this adds all the ambiguities that come with time limits. What takes 5 seconds on your machine is not the same as what takes 5 seconds on my machine. I mean, even, what takes 5 seconds on my machine isn't always the same.
We could specify it further and try to get it nailed down and clear, but for what. I'm not really convinced that there is anything wrong with the rules as they are that this is fixing.
I'm not opposed to rule changes, however the original challenge was fun and worked well. I don't see much reason to change the rules.