Hey Momoko,
This might be better to tackle seperately in a 1-on-1 thread but I think what I'm hearing is that the unclear criteria set it up so that current folks making decisions about new core volunteers are in a position to "judge" incoming members which might dissuade new members. I think that's accurate, but to some extent, we're all judging and being judged all the time (it's not necessarily a bad thing). I think having the criteria be vague and numinous is what makes any process of judgement/evaluation tip towards the unfair/exclusionary. 

So, what I recommend you all try to do is spend time outlining these a little bit:
"Your behaviour in the shop off hours will appropriately represent Bike Farm."
  • What kind of behavior is appropriate? this doesn't need to be a laundry list, even coming up with 'values' level words (ethical, honest, kind etc) will help people understand what is and is not acceptable. A Bike Farm code of ethics would go a long way towards laying this out (those are usually 1 page or less!)
"You have the skills to handle the strange situations that come up at Bike Farm."
I really think reframing this similarly to the questions of mechanic skills-- and how to evaluate who has and doesn't have them, and how to handle that-- bike co-ops are teaching people all kinds of mechanics all the time, usually in this really awesome, incredibly calm and welcoming non-judgmental kind of way. That's not just haphazard! That's systematized, cultural, and it's usually intentional, and you can apply that kind of teaching philosophy to anything your org/group thinks it's important for people to know.

Those questions might seem vague, hard, or weird to answer, but I really think it will make things a lot more accessible and transparent, which in the long run, will make your processes more equitable.