Does anybody get the impression that our questionnaire might be turning people away? I can think of a couple of users with ~10k rep who are reasonably active in review queues (and general close voting), post editing, and duplicate votes, but have no/very little meta and chat presence. However, we have three questions (questions 3, 8, and 10 in the questionnaire) which are about these matters: two are about well- and poorly-recieved meta posts, while the other is about chat (and two of those three questions were my suggestions, but whatever). If someone feels that they won't be able to put together significant answers for three out of ten questions, they may be considering themselves bad fits for the position.
I personally feel that these people would make fine moderators: if they're participating in reviews, they probably have a good enough idea of the policies regarding the scope, so they'll be able to help meta discussions once they're moderators. And some of our present moderators are not very active on chat: some pop in occasionally to make sure that things are going smoothly, and some are barely ever in the room.
If this is the case, is there a way to somehow tell people that it's possible to be a competitive candidate with 'null' answers for those questions, as long as they can show their contributions in some other way?