Greetings! Welcome to the 2017 edition of RfA reform. This process will put to vote three pathways -- Pathway A, which would introduce SecurePoll as the voting system used in RfAs, Pathway B, which would introduce a rotating committee of administrators to assess and vet candidates, as well as possessing the responsibility to present statistics regarding the candidate to the community; the candidate would then be put to vote if approved by the committee. Pathway C is simply to keep RfA the same. At the bottom are also some proposals which are not pathway-specific, such as allowing IPs to vote at the discretion of a bureaucrat, whether a review of the RfA process should be compulsory every two years, whether an emergency review should happen when the amount of administrators declines to 1,000 and the potential for a trial process if the candidate receives more than a simple majority of 50% but less than the discretionary range, subject to a discussion.
During 2017, the amount of RfAs increased from 2016, along with the amount of successful ones. However, the increased turnout to these RfAs has invited its problems. In some cases, the hostile environment that RfA can arguably be described as still exists.
Pathway A
A1. SecurePoll should be used to vote for an RfA candidate.
Survey
Threaded discussion
A1.1. Should a reason be allowed to go with the vote?
Survey
Threaded discussion
I believe that this would require a technical change to the SecurePoll extension.
A1.2. Along with the vote tally, should the closing bureaucrat(s) publish who voted, how they voted, and their optional reason attached to their vote?
Survey
Threaded discussion
A1.3. How should the questioning and voting process occur? Consecutively or concurrently?
Survey
Threaded discussion
A1.3.1. If consecutively, would the process take 14 days (7 for questions and 7 for voting)?
Survey
Threaded discussion
Pathway B
B1. There should be a rotating committee of administrators that will vet and examine prospective RfA candidates, before the candidate is put to voting by the community.
Survey
Threaded discussion
B1.1. How many members of the committee should there be?
Survey
Threaded discussion
B1.2. How long should committee members stand for? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? Or a year?
Survey
Threaded discussion
B1.3. Should the committee formally 'scout' potentially good candidates to undergo an RfA?
Survey
Threaded discussion
B1.4. When and how should the committee members become committee members?
Survey
Threaded discussion
Pathway C
C1. There are no issues with the current RfA process. All should stay the same.
Survey
Threaded discussion
Proposals not specific to a pathway
D1. IP editors should be allowed to make a formal vote in an RfA, with consent from a bureaucrat.
Survey
Threaded discussion
E1. A compulsory review of the RfA process should take place every two years.
Survey
Threaded discussion
F1. An emergency review of the RfA process must take place if and when the number of administrators reaches 1,000 or below.
Survey
Threaded discussion
G1. If a candidate receives more than or equal to 50% of support votes, but does not reach the discretionary range, a subsequent bureaucrat discussion may authorise a closely supervised and mentored 14-day trial period, where the candidate is tested on their ability to appropriately use the tools.
Survey
Threaded discussion
General comments
Greetings! Welcome to the 2017 edition of RfA reform. This process will put to vote three pathways -- Pathway A, which would introduce SecurePoll as the voting system used in RfAs, Pathway B, which would introduce a rotating committee of administrators to assess and vet candidates, as well as possessing the responsibility to present statistics regarding the candidate to the community; the candidate would then be put to vote if approved by the committee. Pathway C is simply to keep RfA the same. At the bottom are also some proposals which are not pathway-specific, such as allowing IPs to vote at the discretion of a bureaucrat, whether a review of the RfA process should be compulsory every two years, whether an emergency review should happen when the amount of administrators declines to 1,000 and the potential for a trial process if the candidate receives more than a simple majority of 50% but less than the discretionary range, subject to a discussion.
During 2017, the amount of RfAs increased from 2016, along with the amount of successful ones. However, the increased turnout to these RfAs has invited its problems. In some cases, the hostile environment that RfA can arguably be described as still exists.
Pathway A
A1. SecurePoll should be used to vote for an RfA candidate.
Survey
Threaded discussion
A1.1. Should a reason be allowed to go with the vote?
Survey
Threaded discussion
I believe that this would require a technical change to the SecurePoll extension.