Board Thread:Decisions/@comment-8846246-20170923181801/@comment-5392675-20170923183033

Jackboog21 wrote:

Master Hydraffe wrote: I'm going to go through this point by point.

(for Points 1 and 2) I think I expressed support for this when Someone10000 proposed it. It makes sense, and we should definitely streamline this approach along with the other staff application processes (RB, CM).

(for Point 3) This does not make sense. Even for the RB and CM processes the staff gets the final say in the event of a tie. The voting process is to bring to our attention who the community is okay with being an admin. The staff's final say solidifies that person's admin position.

Point 4 doesn't seem like a suggestion so I don't have a Support/Oppose on that. In the unlikely event of a tie, staff could have their own vote or the applications could stay open a little longer. I'm fine with both of these, but it should be solidified that staff can only do the first in a tie.

Point 4 was more of just a point in general as a result of point 1. Sorry about that, I've moved it as a sub-point so to say. "the applications could stay open a little longer"

That's not good. The reason we set a limit on the application process in the last election was because we desperately needed an active admin to aid in admin duties. Delaying the election will not do any favors.