On 4/10/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)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