On 4/10/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
If the Bureaucrats themselves feel as you do that the question to answer in an RFA is whether or not a candidate can be trusted with the tools, then one way for them to really drive the point home to those "voting" for "other reasons" is to pick a potentially controversial RFA, that is one that is likely to generate a lot of "opposes", and move any "votes" (support or oppose) that do not address the issue of trust to the talk page.
Sure, or equivalently, state "All oppose !voters must state explicitly 'I do not trust X. Allowing him/her to have an admin bit would be dangerous for the project.' Any non-complying !votes will not be counted."
Back in reality, is there somewhere we could have a vote of no confidence in the RfA mechanism?
Steve