User:Caballero1967/voluntarycratchats

This is a personal "follow-up" from the discussions found in here and.

Assumption: "The result of a bureaucrat discussion is 'easier' to accept than a result handed down by a single bureaucrat only," particularly if it is about a RfA that fell within the discretionary zone, which means with !votes between 65 to 75%.n

Key working questions:
 * 1- Would a Crat-chat for a RfA in the discretionary range make the process of selecting sysops more open and reaffirm trust in the system?
 * 2- If one of the reasons why Crats would not open a chat even in the discretionary zone is that policy limits them for occasions they feel the outcome is unclear, then we could add to policy a clause or section that says something like this, "Crats are welcome to voluntarily call for a chat when they think it would make the process more open, and not only when it is unclear to them. Yet, it is a voluntary decision."
 * 3- If a second reason why Crats would not open a chat for a RfA in the discretionary zone is the perceived notion that it would prolong the candidates' agony, we could seek ways for establishing a more definitive view on the subject (e.g., would they really prefer a quick closure or would they also benefit from a Crat- chat?). We could do this by (1) surveying recent candidates whose RfAs fell within the discretionary range, and also (2) by offering current candidates the option of requesting a quick end from the closing Crat (if the Crat is confident of the decision) or a Crat-chat. The main difference between this proposal and the jury vs. bench system is that the closing Crat should not feel compelled to follow the request. In other words, that even when the candidate may request a Crat- chat, it is always up to the attending Crat to do so.

Caballero / Historiador ⎌  21:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
The page defining the use of the Crat-chat makes reference to the power of the chat to maintain transparency CRATCHAT