79:
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
111:
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
183:
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)
160:
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"
71:
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.
134:
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
172:
Won't having to discuss closures make bureaucrats' jobs more difficult? We'll need to have more bureaucrats to handle the work.
83:
While it would be ideal for bureaucrats to come to a consensus, a simple majority of bureaucrats make the final decision.
43:
Yes, I'm using the word "vote" instead of "!vote" for a reason. Read Q&A below to find out why...
149:
Doesn't this make a bureaucrat more powerful by expanding the range in which they have discretion?
96:
RfA isn't a vote! Voting is evil! Why should a candidate's promotion be based on support %?
17:
112:
those cases, while still allowing the RfAs with obvious results to be handled quickly.
47:
Once the voting period is closed, the next step would depend on the level of support:
28:
138:
has argued that a candidate with less than 60% support should be promoted.
184:
Controversial closes required the support of a majority of crats.
41:
RfAs would proceed as usual for a seven day voting period.
123:
Why should the bureaucrat discussion range be 60-80%?
8:
59:Successful. Candidate is granted adminship
80:from as many bureaucrats as possible.
32:in an attempt to improve the process.
7:
24:
53:Fails / no consensus to promote
1:
26:This is a proposal to modify
201:
65:Discussion by bureaucrats
75:Bureaucrat discussion
29:Request for Adminship
107:In practice, RfA
192:
18:User:ChazBeckett
200:
199:
195:
194:
193:
191:
190:
189:
89:
77:
38:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
198:
196:
188:
187:
186:
185:
175:
174:
165:
164:
163:
162:
152:
151:
142:
141:
140:
139:
126:
125:
116:
115:
114:
113:
99:
98:
88:
85:
76:
73:
69:
68:
67:
66:
60:
54:
45:
37:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
197:
182:
179:
178:
177:
176:
173:
170:
167:
166:
159:
156:
155:
154:
153:
150:
147:
144:
143:
137:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
121:
118:
117:
110:
106:
103:
102:
101:
100:
97:
94:
91:
90:
86:
84:
81:
74:
72:
64:
61:
58:
55:
52:
49:
48:
46:
44:
40:
39:
35:
33:
31:
30:
19:
180:
171:
168:
161:bureaucrats.
157:
148:
145:
135:
131:
122:
119:
108:
104:
95:
92:
82:
78:
70:
62:
56:
50:
42:
27:
25:
57:> 80%:
51:< 60%:
36:Overview
87:Q&A
63:60-80%:
136:anyone
16:<
181:A:
169:Q:
158:A:
146:Q:
132:A:
120:Q:
109:is
105:A:
93:Q:
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.