User:Defiant Elements/RFA

Obviously, the proper role of RFAs has become a point of contention. Since I'm attempting to revamp other aspects of GWiki policy, I thought I'd see if I couldn't think of a way to revamp RFA as well (feel free to add your own thoughts on the talk page).

Possibilities
Current thoughts: combine 2 and 3. Note that possibility 2 assumes that the decision ultimately falls to the bureaucrats regardless of community consensus (and thus would probably involve a minor re-write as well).
 * 1. Do away with RFAs altogether.
 * Pro(s): 100% clarity.
 * Con(s): Bad PR, lack of transparency.
 * 2. Require/suggest that Bureaucrats provide a reason when acting in defiance of community consensus.
 * Pro(s): Increased transparency.
 * Con(s): Increased "red tape."
 * 3. Do away with Support/Oppose/Neutral; shift emphasis to a discussion (highlight gaining insight as the primary (only?) purpose of the discussion).
 * Pro(s): Clarifies the role of the RFA; increases the likelihood that useful insights will be produced (?).
 * Con(s): Doesn't address the "trust" issue: the community may still resent a Bureaucrat's decision which they perceive as defying consensus established through discussion.
 * 4. Replace RfA with a system wherein Bureaucrats nominate candidates who they plan to promote within X days during which time the community is invited to share any insights they may have, potentially giving the Bureaucrat pause.
 * Pro(s): Increased clarity.
 * Con(s): Not as effective in fostering community activism, perception of individual bias.
 * 4a. Possible corollary: add a corollary requiring another Bureaucrat to make the final decision instead.
 * Pro(s): Less chance of a perception of individual bias.
 * Con(s): Increased "red tape," perception of "cabal bias."
 * 5. Require simple majority among Bureaucrats to close an RfA.
 * Pro(s): Less chance of a perception of individual bias.
 * Con(s): Increased "red tape," perception of "cabal bias."
 * 6. Minor re-write clarifying that Bureaucrats have the decision 100%.
 * Pro(s): Increased clarity.
 * Con(s): Bad PR.
 * 7. Any combination of the above (assuming the elements aren't mutually exclusive)
 * Pro(s): Increased transparency, increased clarity -- discussion versus vote, increased clarity -- see above note.
 * Con(s): Increased red tape, bad PR.

Considerations

 * Transparency
 * The role of "information availability" in RFAs.
 * The role of explanations in RFAs.
 * Intention versus perception.
 * How trust affects the Wiki.
 * (Perceived) bias/abuse.
 * Perception of "respect" for the community.
 * The role of RFAs on GWiki.
 * Polls versus votes.
 * Indicators of community consensus/opinion.
 * Sources of insight into the candidate.
 * Opiates of the Wiki masses.
 * The role of Bureaucrats in RFAs.
 * Judges.
 * Dependence (or lack thereof) on community support.
 * Instigators of discussion.
 * Elite versus community.
 * The role of the community at large in RFAs.
 * Informed versus uninformed.
 * Recommendations.

Note: as far as I'm concerned, restricting the role of Bureaucrats in RFAs is not a viable possibility as far as revamping RFA goes. If anyone feels differently, they're welcome to attempt to revamp RFA themselves.