I suppose that nobody commented my idea about the Assembly because of
two main reasons: it's a different paradigm, as well as it doesn't
seem realistic.
The cure for different paradigm acceptance is repeating it until it
becomes familiar :P
But, of course, much more important reason is the fact that it doesn't
look realistic. So, here is one realistic plan.
And, before the plan, here are the main reasons behind this idea (add
your own :) ):
* We have a need to separate political will from expertise. Present
Board structure is coping with that fact. In the case we have
Assembly, it would be the political body, while the Board would become
expert body.
* We want larger democratic participation during the elections for
Board and FDC. Three community and two chapters places make too small
space for everybody to be content. As we could see, this elections
didn't bring any woman, any Latin American or Asian, not even one
American, as well. (If we count Canada as East European colony, all
three elected candidates are East European :P ) In other words, it is
hard to implement any kind of diversity inside of ten members body.
* Besides implementing diversity because it's good to have diverse
points of view, which is good idea not just for any global
organization, but for any multinational company, we strongly depend on
feeling of all Wikimedians that they are properly represented. And,
again, ten members body doesn't give that opportunity well.
* We have significant number of core Wikimedians who are not members
of any governing body (Board, committees, stewards, even admins...)
and they feel powerless. While they don't have particular chance to
become Board members and similar, as it's about small number of
elected representatives, they would have significantly more chance to
become Assembly members, get some influence and stop feeling isolated.
* Our democracy and representations should evolve. The previous
opportunity was Chapters Association, but we didn't succeed. It's time
to try again. FDC has addressed the basic objections, but it's a dead
end in the sense of democracy development.
There could be more arguments in favor and you could add them.
I want now to present realistic plan, which would address the most
important objection I could see: making WMF governing unpredictable. I
would also say that the path which I suggest doesn't cost anything and
it would be reversible at any moment of time during the next five or
more years if we conclude that the Assembly is not that good idea. You
should keep in mind that It's also the initial approximation.
The roadmap:
* June 2015-December 2016: Preparations for CA creation. If we want to
start doing this, we should prepare at least a couple of documents for
the Founding Assembly, so initial members don't need to spend months
in defining them. The idea should be presented to as many as possible
communities. Election committee should prepare the election rules etc.
I think we'll need for that more than a year.
* December 2016: Elections.
* March/April 2017: Founding Assembly during the Wikimedia Conference.
I would leave to the representatives just to constitute Assembly on
this occasion.
* July/August 2017: The first regular Assembly. On that occasion
Assembly should take a couple of committees under itself. I have in
mind LangCom, AffCom and GAC.
In reality, the first two committees are not accountable to anyone and
that should be changed. We shouldn't build numerous of oligarchies de
facto accountable just to themselves. And it doesn't matter if they
are doing a good job (like AffCom is doing now) or they are doing
almost nothing (LangCom case).
On the other side, GAC under CA would be the first test of CA's
ability to manage a body which manages money. Board and staff could
oversee CA's managing and leaving GAC to CA gradually, till full
control. For example, it would be a good test for CA to immediately
give GAC control over small grants and see if CA is capable to oversee
GAC efficiently.
* December 2017: Elections for 1/4 of seats. The number of seats
should be ~50, though it's negotiable. I think that with this number
we could achieve the goals of wider representation, while using
anything much larger could make CA too costly and likely too
inefficient, counting that the members are not paid. I don't think
that it's a good idea to change all the representatives at once and
1/4 seems to me as a number which doesn't make changes too drastic.
* March/April 2018: Assembly during WMCON. At that time, besides
ongoing issues, CA should start writing the report for the Board and
community: What did it do for one year of existence?
* July/August 2018: Assembly adopts the report and presents it to the
Board and community.
* August 2018-October 2018: Board and community analyze the report and
CA's work. If everything is fine, CA should continue with it's work.
Otherwise, Board could call for referendum on existence of CA
(preferably) or disband it
