Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Decision-Making

💡 In simple words: Who decides things at WikiDeal? Everyone can help write the rules, like on Wikipedia: you do not need to win an election to propose a good idea. Groups of users send delegates to a big assembly, and that assembly chooses small teams of 5, 7 or 9 people to run things. For money, the rule is simple: services should cost what they really cost, and what is left over goes back to the community.

🎯 In 20 seconds (scientific summary): Proposed decision-making model of WikiDeal, offered as a basis for discussion. Legislative: entirely open, Wikipedia-style; anyone bringing solutions can propose and evolve the rules, no election needed to legislate. Agenda and elections: an assembly of delegates, formed by delegates of the user groups and by users who entrust their voting right to a delegate; delegates act as facilitators, advisers and WikiDeal resource persons, and the assembly elects the executives. Executive: collegial councils of 5, 7 or 9 members depending on scale, at each of the three levels (User Groups, Rings of Trust, global governance), with 9 envisaged at the global level, the exact figure remaining open. Voting: the method matches the decision, up to Condorcet ballots for complex cases (see the Voting portal). Money: at-cost management and redistribution, in the cooperative tradition.

Decision-Making

Status: initial hypothesis, proposed as a basis for discussion. Nothing on this page is adopted. This page details the decision mechanics of the hybrid governance model.

Who decides what

The proposed distribution of decision power, in one table:

Question	Who would decide	Main inspiration
Rules and policies (the "laws")	All contributors, directly, on the wiki	Wikipedia, Debian
Agenda and elections	The assembly of delegates	Cooperative delegate assemblies, the Swiss Federal Assembly
Operational direction, at each level	Collegial executives of 5, 7 or 9 members	The Swiss Federal Council and the directorial system
Complex multi-option choices	Voters, through Condorcet-style ballots where justified	Wikimedia and Debian practice
Money	At-cost management and redistribution	The cooperative tradition

Each row is detailed below.

The legislative: open to all, no election needed

The rule-making side of WikiDeal is intended to be entirely open, following the Wikipedia Governance hypothesis. It would be run directly by all the contributors willing to roll up their sleeves: anyone bringing solutions can propose rules and make the governance evolve, exactly as anyone can improve a Wikipedia article (see how Wikipedia builds consensus). No election is needed to legislate. Delegates would push the agenda, but proposing "laws" is never their monopoly: any user can do it.

The everyday tools of this open legislative culture are those of the free software movement: a social contract (compare the Debian Social Contract and WikiDeal's Ecopol social contract), a code of conduct, written policies and committees such as the Steering Committee.

The assembly of delegates

The assembly of delegates is the envisaged representative body of WikiDeal. It would be formed by:

• the delegates of the user groups, and
• the users who entrust their voting right to a delegate of their choice.

A delegate is not a distant politician. The delegate is intended as a facilitator, an adviser, a WikiDeal resource person: someone who provides services to the users they represent. Delegates would push the agenda of the assembly, while rule proposals themselves remain open to everyone (see above).

The assembly would have one decisive power: it elects the government, that is, the collegial executives described below.

Collegial executives: 5, 7 or 9 members

Executive power is intended to be collegial at every level, never in the hands of one person, following the Swiss directorial system and its culture of collegiality. Three levels are envisaged, mirroring the Swiss institutional structure (communes, cantons, Confederation; the analogy is detailed on the Governance page):

1. User Groups (the communes),
2. Rings of Trust (the cantons),
3. global governance (the Confederation, the country).

Each level would have a collegial executive of 5, 7 or 9 members, depending on the scale of what it governs. At the global level, the working hypothesis is 9 members, a number estimated for a country-scale institution; the exact figure remains open, the principle being an odd, manageable group size drawn from existing institutional experience (the reasoning behind that number, including a Swiss anecdote about the 7-member Federal Council, is given on the Governance page). The executives would be elected by the assembly of delegates.

Voting: Condorcet where it is worth it

Voting methods are not duplicated here: the Voting portal is the reference. In short, the initial hypothesis is that most decisions never need a ballot (direct action, revert, discussion), and that when a vote is needed the method should match the decision: simple majority for binary questions, Condorcet-style ranked votes (Schulze method) for complex multi-option cases. The documented history of Condorcet voting in the Wikimedia and Debian communities, with sourced numbers, is on the Condorcet history and results page; the methods under study are on the Voting methods page.

Money: at cost, then redistribution

Financial decisions are intended to follow the cooperative tradition: at-cost management (services priced at their real cost), ownership by the users, and redistribution of what is not needed for operations. The mechanisms are described in the Economy portal; the advantages envisaged for the minority of users who get deeply involved are described on the Civic Incentive page.

See also

• Governance: the hybrid model (Wikipedia and free software, cooperatives, Swiss structure).
• Voting portal and Condorcet voting in practice: history and results.
• Steering Committee: the founding governance body.
• Wikipedia Governance (foundational innovation).
• Is WikiDeal a DAO?