Talk:Sortition

Research indicates (sorry, can't find the citation right off the bat) that the optimal group size is 5 or 7, depending on what you're trying to accomplish. 5 is good for a dynamic group that will take a lot of action; the number is too small for there to be any room for anyone to passively lurk. 7 creates a pretty relaxed setting in which people feel that they can speak if they want, but aren't obligated to speak. 12 is too many; the group ends up being dominated by one or two blowhards.

Therefore, there should be a larger assembly (e.g. 60) and a smaller executive board (5 or 7). Elect the assembly by raffle-voting, and have the assembly elect the executive board by cumulative voting, with binding voting contracts allowed. The assembly can delegate to the executive board whatever power it wishes, and can also hire and fire the person in charge of the wikihierarchy. There should be a term limit of three years per lifetime, to give more users opportunity to serve and to prevent stagnation and tandem-rule situations. This might be just about the best system that can be devised for a nonprofit organization of this nature. Of course, there will still be the problems arising from a lot of wikicapitalism.

I have mixed feelings about whether there should be staggered terms or not. Staggered terms allow for mentorship of new members by more experienced members and ensure that if get a crummy assembly, at least you get rid of some of them periodically. On the other hand, if you get a crummy assembly, you only get rid of some (rather than all) of them periodically. Also, staggered terms can lead to seniority systems in situations where there's a one-term limit. Leucosticte (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)