The most revealing aspect of the RfC, in my view, is in Casliber's question on scale: 29 people so far have endorsed "Yes, scale is too big for changes to be effected by consensus only, and some organised group is necessary", while only seven have endorsed the opposing view, "No, consensus and discussion are continuing to work to a satisfactory level". This is a momentous change from earlier years, when the idea of instituting a formal governance structure and recognizing the limitations of consensus in matters of project management was considered a laughable fringe proposal.
Part of the problem we'll have with reforming the governance system is that it can't be done in one step: we can't just create a body to act in a governance role, because it would be impossible to demonstrate a consensus for the details of any such body's role and powers. However, I think it is possible to demonstrate a consensus on the need to elect a committee to review the problems, make recommendations, and craft proposals as referendums. The rest would follow--probably with complications, but this would create a workable mechanism through which things could actually get done. The ArbCom could facilitate that by agreeing to scrap this advisory council and endorsing the creation of an elected reforms committee.
|