User:Nosebagbear/MCDC format

'''This (in progress) proposal is a suggestion on how the MCDC should handle their structure of discussion - and is intended to be proposed regardless of whether I am selected to sit on the MCDC.


 * This proposal draws on the boundaries and detail proposals suggested in this meeting, as well as my own thoughts, a huge number of comments, ideas, and disagreements from others involved in the strategy discussions, and some lessons picked up from the UCOC process.


 * Where no proposed phase count has been given, it should continue so long as significant changes are being made.


 * As a general rule, it attempts to determine what a new body should do, before deciding how it should be set-up, so as to allow a structure tailored to its responsibilities.


 * 1) Internal Committee forms, handles bureaucracy, has initial thoughts on process. This is particularly key for things like internal working methodology, with things like translations, working groups and so on.
 * 2) First community discussion (brushstrokes) - we know the broad areas of the MCDC, but what (still broad) areas should go within these. What would the community like from the MCDC, and what should its transparency obligations be? In the event that the MCDC does not feel it can meet those obligations (either from legal or functionality limitations), it should clearly state them and why - and comply to the closest degree it can.
 * 3) Community discussion (two phase), as to what form ratification should take. First stage would be "what are ideas on ratification, majority/supermajority etc". Second could be the MCDC proposing a ratification method that would not change if adopted, with the Community concurring or not, with changes made as needed. Amendment process, if distinct, could be clarified here, along with review periods.
 * 4) Values & transparency - this should be (somewhat) less controversial (certainly no controversial principal should be being included), and will act as a good test case for the methodology and building good faith at the process. Particular focus should be paid to how different projects could have appreciably different principles to the Wikipedias. This would also include proposals for transparency obligations on existing bodies, which will be adapted for new bodies. It could also include things like "Limits on the number of simultaneous consultations with the volunteer community."
 * 5) Expectations for participation and the rights of participants: perhaps more controversial, but find what rights and responsibilities individual editors have. Is the "removed from the site for any reason fair, even if legally useful?" This will act as a guardrail for future segment discussions
 * 6) Roles and responsibilities (Current bodies): phase 1 of this will consist of creating an idea of what bodies view their current responsibilities and powers to be. It will likely necessitate targeted meetings as well as general discussion. Particular focus should be put to whether more than one group is claiming a power/authority.
 * 7) Break 1 - the MC drafting is going to take a drain on both the committee members but also excarbate the strategic exhaustion the community faces. A 1 month break should be taken, for which at least 3 weeks of which should involve no MCDC activity either.
 * 8) R&R (current bodies/new bodies) Phase 2 of this should be "where do these powers cause problems? What responsibilities do people think should be transferred from one group to another. This should specifically include "to a new body". There may also be "responsibilities that will come into being", which should be proposed and allocated. This will involve writing a precis of what the new bodies should be, but with the massive highlight that this may change. Unfortunately, this step and the "what should be the nature/responsibilities of GC and hubs" are intertwined. It may also be better to exempt revenue - it's a separate topic. They can't be done together smoothly, but also have to be awkward to do individually. At this point, we would diverge away. It must be returned to.
 * 9) R&R (governance structure & relationships) Using a provisional bucketing of responsibility areas, discuss thoughts on what coordination between bodies should be like, what accountability will look like, how different entities will relate to each other and proposals on how disputes could be handled. This will necessitate multiple phases now, and an additional one after the actual structures are created. The provisional bucketing should note where different rights have been transferred from, and when its final form is created, should be specifically included in the MC.
 * 10) Global Hubs - what are these hubs purpose? Are they primarily affiliate-based? Off-wiki based? Will they have any no-wiki executive authority, or do we have sufficient bodies for that? The draft proposal for an Arabic wiki regional hub acts as an indication on what type of data gathering should be done in this exercise - perhaps prior to opening the Community discussions. With the hubs purpose considered, what should their structure be - or the min/max limits on such, if there shouldn't be a specific form. Who is responsible for recognising such - the GC?
 * 11) Global Council - the likely single biggest hot-button issue. What should its structure be, what external limitations should there be on it exceeding its scope, how to balance the issues of small projects having little representation against diminishing the individual voting strength of editors on larger projects. What support structures should it have - board, staff etc. Should it have independent legal status? Independent budget?
 * 12) Break 2 - I suspect the previous discussions will have raised tension and reduced interest. It will also have taken significant time. Time to step back and go work on articles.
 * 13) Re-cap of responsibilities of groups - now there are known structures, it's likely that there will need to be shuffling of responsibilities. There may also be more insight on how dispute resolution needs to be done at this stage.
 * 14) Policies and procedures - this is sort of a catchall field, but could include things like how elections in general should be handled, any change to a more community ElectCom etc. Coverage of policies external to the MC with community-wide sphere could also fall into here: if/how the UCOC should be considered, mediawiki, etc.
 * 15) Revenue generation and distribution - in short, who should make money, who should spend it, who should determine how it is spent, and who should determine who spends it. Whether there should be different rules for affiliate-generated funds vs centrally generated funds and so on. Any interaction with the endowment (in and out) should also be done here, and thus will involve an additional independent stakeholder.
 * 16) Free space for "what needs rethinking" - it's almost certain that something will be screaming out as a flaw. Some minimal level of concern may be warranted to avoid re-starting the whole document, but that's preferable than running it into the ground.
 * 17) Legal review and bylaw change drafting - the MC will necessitate major changes to the bylaws. While Legal and the BOT will have a running start, a semi-fixed version will allow them to start formalising the work here.
 * 18) Roadshow - a vast process of spreading knowledge about the draft MC to ALL stakeholders, answering questions, clarifying etc, needs to be done. This will conclude with:
 * 19) Ratification - a long ratification process, using the methodology agreed earlier. Two outcomes:
 * Accepted: celebrate, then get implementation going. It may take some considerable time before the final aspect can be implemented.
 * Declined: This is a significant possibility, and should be accepted from the start as such. The MCDC and Community must be mentally ready to accept that significant rework could be needed, using reasoning provided on votes. There may be call for at least some new members to the MCDC.