Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-4848837-20140901041132/@comment-34326521-20140903081302

Cokedragon wrote: Blaziken rjcf wrote: Cokedragon wrote: There very well can be if an admin doesn't vote (and for whatever reason, can't vote -- such as in the case of brief inactivity, but that's probably unlikely.

So are you suggesting we don't allow the admins to vote at all except in the case of tiebreakers (because that would probably be a much better idea)? The admins need to vote, if only to say whether or not they know how to implement the suggestion. I suppose we could just get CotG votes. Maybe elect one bureaucrat, one admin, one CVU, one Custodian, and one regular user for a total of five CotG members (one from each major group). The first two would be picked by the users, and the others would be picked by the first two groups, so as to prevent as much bias as possible. Would this suffice? Instead of being random, have the community pick users to represent them in the event of a tie-breaker, as well as on the wiki in general. Ah, yes, this is the perfect way to go about it :D Only problem: We have only one CVU member at this moment :P We can always replace CVU with rollback, or merge CVU and Custodian (for the purposes of this election) and add one rollback.