Please change the numbered links to written links.--Eloquence 03:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
The text says "This page is protected", but the page is not actually protected. Did we forget something, or is this a deliberate choice? --Michael Snow 05:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
One week for voting is too short. If it is kept this short, we should allow one user to give his voting rights to another user. Anthere 04:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
For once I agree. In an important case like this, more time for voting is needed. I suggest two weeks at least.--Eloquence 10:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
It's probably too late to say this, but I really think we need to elect more than 2 people. 4 should be more suited, give a more equilibrated representation. -- Looxix 16:21, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a bad idea, but it would require changing the by-laws which currently allow for only 2 elected members. Perhaps those who are elected can review the by-laws in time for the next election. I'm assuming it's too late for this one. Angela 07:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
So, the page should link to Special:Boardvote, I guess? Found it hard to find that...
anonymous active users - clarification of ineligible voting status required 
The heading notice should be amended to refer to "all active, non-anonymous users" (or something similar), or the reference to "active user" should link to a clarification on the election page which points out that the set of active users does not in fact include all active users.
As an active user who happens to be an "anon", although I personally feel that I should be entitled to vote (unfortunately some appear to be less equal than others), the exclusion of anon contributors should only be accepted if this point is made clear. The representation that all active users may participate is plainly incorrect if the appropriate changes are not made. No exhortations to damn well log in then, please. Perhaps I will. 22.214.171.124 04:04, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)