While we are dreaming.....
There would have to be a reorganization of bishops, so there would be no overlap. Someone here did a study on that somewhere.
Recently I saw something about a ROCOR bishop who has as part of his title, besides his diocese "defender of the Old Rite" (he is the touchpoint for the Old Ritualists in ROCOR). There is something like that should be had, as Met. Jonah quoted St. Tikhon in his recent statement.
So St. Nicholas, St. Raphail's see, should be set aside for a bishop who would be "defender of the Antiochian Usage and Arabic tradition." Said bishop would be the one to approve the Arabic liturgical texts, and serve as the Holy Synod's overseer of Antiochian liturgical usage, stating what was ligitimate and what was liturgical abuse, and speak up and defend the Antiochian customs and tradition. Said bishop would also advise on relations with the Arab Orthodox abroad in general and Antioch in particular. Also with the Melkite and Maronites, and the advisor on the issue of reunion with the Syriac Orthodox, here and in Syria. Said bishop could also be charged with mission to Muslims, here and abroad.
If necessry, and possible, a see can be set aside for the defender of "Jerusalmite usage" can be set up. I wouldn't recommend Ben Lomand.
In Boston, a see for an Albanian bishop should be set up who would continue the tradition of St. Fan Noli, approve Albanian texts, missions to Albanian Muslims, etc.
In Sitka, the See should be charged with missions to the Amerindians, defender of the use of their languages in the rites, etc.
San Francisco should have a bishop who is the "defendor of the Great Russian Usage and Tradition," a bishop in Pensylvania should be the "defender of the Carpartho-Russian, Rusyn and Ruthenian Usage and Traditions." This is important: doing this both preserves the place of the Russians and the returnees from the Vatican in the history of Orthodoxy in North America, and cuts the OCA as a whole free to develop organically, and allay fears of the non-slavs, and in the case of the Ukrainians, slavs.
The Romanians can stay put and keep Detroit, and act as defender of the Romanian usage, etc.
We would have two bishops in Canada, Bp. (not auxiliary) Alexander should stay in Montreal (or more to Quebec City, it's much better) to serve the French (not only in Canada but in USA), and Bp. Serapim in Ottawa to make sure that Canada is not relegated to an afterthought by the Holy Synod of the new OCA. Speaking of which, the opportunity might be taken to rename it the "Orthodox Church in North America," or to think about autocephaly for Canada (although I think the guarenteed sees for the French and English Canadians, and, if Ukrainians are enticed to join our common cause, then Vancouver can be restored as a see for the Ukrainians too).
The OCA's exarch in Mexico can serve for the Hispanics, but that would also entail dealing with the seperate Antiochian Archdiocese.
And looking towards the future: Chicago could be set aside of the Serbs: we have the largest number of them here. Or the Orthodox Poles, if they become numerous enough in this country. We have more Poles than anyone except Warsaw.
The last of course, I expect, would be the Greeks. They can have New York.
Of course, these assignments to certain thrones are not exclusive. Just because Brooklyn is the Arab See, doesnn't mean an Arab can't be a bishop to another diocesan see, etc. It just makes sure SOMEONE is doing these tasks, and SOMEONE is looking out for the Arab Orthodox, the Albanian Orthodox, the Romanian Orthodox, etc. and make sure that the Russain Orthodox and CR Orthodox are not too over powering.
As for the WRO, perhaps, if the merger were to happen, Wichita should be groomed as a WRO bishop.