Thanks for your reply Nico. Yes at first glance if we had 50 active members three may seem ok.

However, if you look in Forum, the number of people logging in or did actually vote is very small.
I counted 13 people who actually logged into Forum in 2006 and commented, only 7 including you, Adm, SAK, Duncan, Mantell, Shishir and myself have logged in and commented in 2007. Some of these only once.

Many of the "members" joined only wanting a email list update and apparently never intended to "participate" in WDDM affairs. That is fine, however we could consider having a mailing list for WDDM Email Membership. A second membership, WDDM Participatory membership would be members who have agreed to participate in WDDM Organizational and business affairs.

This lack of active members has been the constant problem of WDDM and results in much fragmentation. I believe the Board can develop the needed Charter so a usable and viable process can followed allowing all members access and input (if they wish) yet being able to conduct business without need of calling a full membership in face meeting, which is impossible (distance and $$$$)

At this point WDDM is just forming and many many changes will be made along the way. We need to be able to make these changes easily without bureaucratic legalize keeping us from making these changes. The Board should be able to make decisions for WDDM, that is what is needed. The I&R is for WDDM members to Initiate and change anything the members may choose. With I&R members (could) have the power to Initiate and make structural changes, Charter changes, Recall of elected officers or membership or any needed change.

However, with a "tight" three member second it is unlikely an Initiative would ever make it into the process. This is what seemed to frustrate Mark on his Gravel proposal. He never got even one second on his idea. The Initiative was not really discussed save for my objection. In all fairness, it did not seem this proposal was introduced following a formal process.

At any rate, with less than 100 people, I believe only one second (1%) would be necessary and than it could be brought to Referendum.

Thanks for your comment. Please continue this discussion if you choose, it is important. Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com