Maybe now somebody will realise that something is fundamentally wrong with our adminship process. It does not scale; it worked when we were smaller, but now it seems to me that the old indicators of trustworthiness for adminship are unreliable; in the first place, the RfA process seems to diminish the importance of the trust factor, emphasising more the ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT factors.
What happens on RfA doesn't tell us anything about how well our adminship process is working. You need to look at what actual admins do, not what is said about admin candidates. No-one standing for adminship doesn't mean we don't have enough admins, you need to look at the size of admin backlogs to determine that. People giving reasons you don't like on RfAs doesn't means admins are becoming less trustworthy, you need to look at what admins do wrong to determine that.
RfA may be the cause of these problems, but you need to look at the symptoms to determine if there actually is a problem.