Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through open discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low if compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group (sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and we need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated to wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of people who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort, this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list could participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to contribute to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it to fruition.
I am sorry but I will be frank here Bishakha, I don't know what your definition of committed is, but mine is there for you to see-
I fail to see a single edit from him in the last 2 years related to Movement Roles. The last 200 edits were mostly for his own research project. In the entirety of the last year, I have not seen a single post from him on this list or Meta, yet the project started out with him in the "steering committee" and now an year and 20 other contributors later, it's back to the old one.
There are people here like Alice, and Abbas, not just me, who bothered showing up for meetings, following up, cleaning up on wiki. But there seems to be something very wrong going on here, someone just took the existing MR group, and cherry picked. The only issue is, I can question involvement and contribution not just from you, but several others. People who debated this, and discussed it for months, they are being left out now to participate as any random individual can on-wiki. All the work and time that we devoted doesn't seem to matter.
Since someone brought up use of donor funds, I wonder what adding Achal to the meeting accomplishes? I can point to his non-existing contribution to the strategy project before this, when he was put in charge of a task force and made 30 or less edits in the entire existence of that wiki.
I wonder if lodewijk or Bence think this is right. This is not my definition of meritocracy. This is wrong and I object.
Theo