I agree with srk and CiteAndPrune, but want to add a couple of other thoughts. First, there has never been a TL poll (to my knowledge) that featured only one candidate that clearly appeared to be qualified. Unless one is ever completely satisfied with the outcome of a CAP, one can always speculate as to what another TL might have done differently. Sure, CAP 4 was an extreme case, but we had no way of predicting that beforehand, nor can we ever truly know what would happen in any project with a different TL, however appealing that hypothetical scenario will always be to someone. Second, community members demonstrate their TL qualification (aka what gets them past the initial screening) by being active in the forum, and making insightful and persuasive posts. Even if a new member decides to vote with only limited knowledge of the candidates, for whom are they most likely to vote? I would assume the people that make frequent and persuasive posts, and while "insightful" is less of a certainty, it tends to help with the "persuasive" part. How else would a so-called "noob" have any idea whom to vote for? This point is conjecture, and I don't actually know how well this problem solves itself, but I would imagine that it does to some extent. Remember, also, that BMB was the kind of insightful poster we wanted before he was actually chosen as TL, and that one of the major points of the TLT model is to prevent a TL from running the project into the ground anyway. I hear what you're saying, Pwnemon, but I just don't think it's enough to end a community vote. If the TL vote had never been so open, I might look at this differently, but I think we should have stronger reasons than these to take a vote away from the greater community. I'm also against simultaneous TL and TLT elections, because again, I don't think the drawbacks to holding them separately that you identified outweigh the benefits of simplifying the process. As I said in my previous post, one of the most important things about CAP leadership is that it be easy to understand, which means that it is best to avoid simultaneous votes and any possible confusion over the results.