+1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's + staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency & process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives are not even a good aim to begin with.
cheers,
scann
100% this.
The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer, multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never less than five."[1]
The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible. This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of people. It's turtles all the way down.