This is a proposal to modify Request for Adminship in an attempt to improve the process.

Overview

• RfAs would proceed as usual for a seven day voting period. Yes, I'm using the word "vote" instead of "!vote" for a reason. Read Q&A below to find out why...
• Once the voting period is closed, the next step would depend on the level of support:
  • < 60%: Fails / no consensus to promote
  • > 80%: Successful. Candidate is granted adminship
  • 60-80%: Discussion by bureaucrats

In this last case, the consensus is not clear from the raw vote. The RfA is considered closed and no new comments are allowed. The decision to promote is then put up for discussion by all bureaucrats.

Bureaucrat discussion

When the consensus isn't clear from the support %, bureaucrats decide whether there is consensus to promote. Information that wasn't presented in the RfA can be considered as the goal is to get a comprehensive view of the candidate. The discussion would last as long as necessary to allow input from as many bureaucrats as possible.

While it would be ideal for bureaucrats to come to a consensus, a simple majority of bureaucrats make the final decision.

Q&A

• Q: RfA isn't a vote! Voting is evil! Why should a candidate's promotion be based on support %?

• A: In practice, RfA is a vote. Take a look at the results of RfAs. We already know the fate of candidates with support of less than 60% (failed) or above 80% (successful). The problem area is in the middle. That's where candidates with a few blemishes can get caught. This proposal is designed to give more attention to those cases, while still allowing the RfAs with obvious results to be handled quickly.

• Q: Why should the bureaucrat discussion range be 60-80%?

• A: This is an arbitrary range, but I think it makes sense. It's wide enough to encompass any RfA where the candidate has the slightest chance of passing. I'm not sure anyone has argued that a candidate with less than 60% support should be promoted.

• Q: Doesn't this make a bureaucrat more powerful by expanding the range in which they have discretion?

• A: It does greatly expand the range, but on balance it requires discussion among bureaucrats. Any decisions made will have the support of a majority of bureacrats and hopefully a true consensus. This will help to eliminate any appearance of "rogue" bureaucrats.

• Q: Won't having to discuss closures make bureaucrats' jobs more difficult? We'll need to have more bureaucrats to handle the work.

• A: The majority of RfAs close as obvious pass/fails. Discussion won't be needed for these (although it's not prohibited either). If more bureaucrats are needed, we'll elect them. I think the community would be more likely to support new bureaucrats if: 1) A need for more was demonstrated and 2) Controversial closes required the support of a majority of crats.