I'm not a fun of random 100 users will be on DT1, even if the "unlucky" will be out of the DT1 the DT2 included on the DT1 inclusion list will be out of the list and some scammer will have a clean trust for an "x" amount of time.
Maybe a slightly harder requirement to be on DT1 is a good solution to reduce the list?
More merit? More people inclusion required?
The problem is two-fold here: A fixed sized subset with some kind of ranking would give you probably >90% of the same members all the time (while kind-of obliterating partial decentralization, it would prevent a lot of other issues). A fixed sized subset with no ranking (random as is) creates other problems, some of which are already revealing itself. e.g. (randomly) Leave out OgNasty and keep PHI? Even I'd protest such a situation. Maybe a slightly harder requirement to be on DT1 is a good solution to reduce the list?
More merit? More people inclusion required?
Alright, new rule then: If you've participated in these "elections" (note: nepotism and circle-jerking), and you've never really contributed outside of your section AND your username does not contain the word 'kedi', then you're excluded.
Tataam surprisee 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5039577.msg46259753#msg46259753
