I am totally unsatisfied with the performance of our current USA government.
Perhaps many others are as well. Perhaps not.
I would like to discuss the root causes of our dissatisfaction, along with potential new forms of government.
Anyone else interested?
Do you have any specific new forms of government in mind to discuss?
Yes. a true republic, actually.
What is a “true republic”?
My first impulse is to say that a true republic is what I am proposing. 
However I am more interested in examining the current process to determine how it fails to be a true republic first, so that we might then come to some understanding of what a true republic might be, without arguing about details.
Which is totally non-responsive. How can we determine whether something is or is not a true republic without at least a basic definition of what you mean by the term?
Ahhh, excellent.
I would suggest that we begin with a dictionary definition of a “republic”.
How does that sound?
"Republic, defined by Mirriam-Webster
a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."
That’s a start, I guess. Another guess-you are opposed to the use of the electoral college, and wish it to be abolished. Am I on the right track here?
I would like to examine the concept of government first.
I would like to suggest that “a government”, no matter what form it may be, is essentially a process of making decision, that are imposed on a population.
Every form of government can be defined by specified process of making decisions.
Not quite. 
My discussion focus goes much much deeper.
…or mutually agreed upon by the population.
Possible large problems/dissensions hidden within that part of the definition.
Who of the people living in the area the government claims jurisdiction over are considered “citizens entitled to vote”?
Regardless of what is “agreed upon…”, that which is agreed upon, would be some specified process for making decisions, correct?
Correct, a decision, needs to be made concerning which individuals might be “citizens”.
Is this just an exercise in semantics or are we supposed to actually be discussing different types of government here?
If it’s the latter, how about this; parliamentary democracy works better than our system of divided government. Our divided government too easily gets into a deadlock, where opposing factions can stop things from happening but not get anything done themselves. Divided government also allows one faction to point the finger at another faction and blame all of the problems on their opponents.
In a parliamentary system, the legislature and the executive are combined into a single body and have clear authority over the other branches. They are held in check by the voters not by other branches of the government. This means the faction in power has the ability to carry out its agenda while at the same time being clearly responsible for that agenda and its consequences. If the agenda doesn’t work, the voters can replace the faction in power with a new one at any time.
How can you say that the existing system isn’t a true republic and then say that helps to understand what a true republic is? Seems kind of circular. Defining the terms isn’t “arguing about the details.”
It is a discussion, and I prefer to settle the semantics. A “discussion”, that has no agreed upon definition of the terms used, is not a discussion, it’s a screaming match.
Did I say that the existing system is not a true republic?
So what is your suggestion?
That is how I read the first part of this sentence, “However I am more interested in examining the current process to determine how it fails to be a true republic first, so that we might then come to some understanding of what a true republic might be, without arguing about details.”