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.
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?[edit]
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.[edit]
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.[edit]
