WDDM Home DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROMOTE DIRECT (TRUE) DEMOCRACY

WDDM Forum : WDDM Membership Guidelines

Forum for the discussion of the WDDM organizational structure and the development of the membership guidelines 
Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage List• New Topic • Search • Log In
Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: MiKolar (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2006 08:30AM

I think we still have a problem with proper terminology that is the source of the most recent disagreement between Bruce and Eric. "Board" as I used it was the source of the problem, I think. So I'll try another attempt to reconcile it, and also accommodate here all the recent suggestions, and put it as the start of a new thread (round of discussion):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


WDDM Membership


Summary:
Our past experience shows that there are roughly two groups who want to be associated with WDDM.
1. There is a larger group of people who support WDDM goals (to various extent) but are currently not able to participate more actively. These persons will be called the WDDM Associate Members. They constitute a loose Association without any further internal structure. They become members by mere registration.
2. The second, smaller group consists of people who are able and willing to do some activity. They will be called the Ordinary Members. They are accepted by other Ordinary Members. They can create whatever structure (officers, Board) they deem necessary for the efficient functioning of WDDM. This group of Ordinary Members can be seen as the WDDM proper - an Organization within the larger pool or Association of associate members.


Details:


WDDM Associate Membership) is granted to all interested who complete the application form at [www.world-wide-democracy.net]
(see also the end of my post at [www.world-wide-democracy.net] for the discussion of the items in this form).
There is no approval requirements for Associate Members. However, their membership can be terminated, if their behaviour is in complete contradiction to the WDDM mission.
Associate Members will have access to the interactive facilities of the WDDM site (Forum and Wiki), and can participate in Discussions going on there and post their materials in the Wiki. They are all encouraged to become Ordinary Members.


WDDM Ordinary Members constitute an organization (or other appropriate structure they later decide on) to administrate, organize and run the WDDM.
Ordinary Members are being accepted/approved. This group can be seen as the WDDM proper (an "organization" within the larger "association" of associate members).


Proposed rules:


Rule A: Only the Ordinary Members have the authority to amend the Current Operating Rules or the Constitution of the WDDM.


Rule B: All members can make suggestions on the functioning of WDDM. All the decisions are made by the structures ("officers," perhaps a Board?) established within the Ordinary Members organization.


Rule C: Any Ordinary Member who has failed to vote at the polls on issues required of the Ordinary Members for more than five (5) times consecutively in a continuous period of more than three (3) months without a good reason or excuse acceptable to the other Ordinary Members shall henceforth cease to be an Ordinary Member and shall become an Associate Member.


Rule D: A person shall cease to be an Ordinary Member, if 75% of all the Ordinary Members vote in favor of a motion to withdraw his Ordinary Membership. He shall then become an Associate Member unless the motion expressly disallows him to be so.


Becoming an Associate WDDM Member


The completion of the application form at [www.world-wide-democracy.net] is all what is needed.


Becoming an Ordinary Member


Application for Ordinary Membership:
After being an Associate WDDM Member for a continuous period of three months, an Associate Member can apply to be accepted as an Ordinary Member. If they have not done so before, the Ordinary Member candidates have to supply their full name and surname, and the mailing address. Ordinary Members must indicate their interest in being active in the management of the WDDM.


Accepting an Ordinary Member:
1. The Ordinary Member Application is sent to all the current Ordinary Members for review.
2. The Ordinary Membership Application Review will be completed within 90 days.
3. An applicant will be immediately accepted as a WDDM Ordinary Member if not more than 20% of the current Ordinary members have any objections to her/his Membership.
4. An applicant will be immediately rejected if 80% or more of the Ordinary Members are against her/his Membership.
5. If none of 3. or 4. applies, the application is suspended until a consensus (either 3. or 4.) is achieved.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another group with no special role at all:
WDDM Honored Members are persons who initiated the idea of WDDM and were instrumental in its establishment and worked to maintain WDDM through its initial stages. They do not have to be the current members - this title is an acknowledgement of their historical role.

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2006 09:19AM by MiKolar.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2006 12:31PM

Mirek said; "I think we still have a problem with proper terminology that is the source of the most recent disagreement between Bruce and Eric. "Board" as I used it was the source of the problem, I think. So I'll try another attempt to reconcile it, and also accommodate here all the recent suggestions, and put it as the start of a new thread (round of discussion"):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear all, I do not think the difficulty is in the word "Board:, I think it is in the concept of how the WDDM organization is structured. I point out Mirek's statement to call attention to this problem. " This group of Ordinary Members can be seen as the WDDM proper - an Organization within the larger pool or Association of associate members."
We certainly do not want an Organization within the larger pool or [WDDM Organization] (Association). We certainly do not want or need another ORGANIZATION! Than you begin defining the eligibility of these members to be in the new "Organization". NOT GOOD!
The WDDM Organization needs a WDDM Board to carry out the administrative duties of WDDM. To categorize members is to judge them, active, inactive, interested, disinterested, DD or not DD.
I comment within Mirek's post below:


WDDM Membership


Summary:
Our past experience shows that there are roughly two groups who want to be associated with WDDM.
1. There is a larger group of people who support WDDM goals [don't the other members support WDDM goals?] (to various extent) but are currently not able to participate more actively. [Yup, those old INACTIVE members are the cause of all the problems] These persons will be called the WDDM Associate Members. They constitute a loose Association without any further internal structure. They become members by mere registration. [not much value here]
2. The second, smaller group consists of people who are able and willing to do some activity. [who's unable?] They will be called the Ordinary Members. They are accepted by other Ordinary Members. [This implies the other members are NOT accepted by Ordinary members] They can create whatever structure (officers, Board) they deem necessary for the efficient functioning of WDDM. [WOW they got POWER] This group of Ordinary Members can be seen as the WDDM proper - [The rest of WDDM is improper?] an Organization within the larger pool or Association of associate members. [Organization within an Organization] BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2 - Authority
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2006 03:27PM

Authority for "the board" to re-establish WDDM


WDDM has been operating with the present Website and re-organization process for over a year. Obviously since nobody has opposed it, this re-organization is "authorized".
Further, consensus has been proposed and also with no opposition has been accepted.


Initially, these things were all posted for any WDDM member to confront, offer different ways, or oppose totally. No opposition was made. Thus we have a 100% Consensus that these posted methods of operation are authorized and approved by all WDDM Members.
[democracy.mkolar.org]


This is only the Consensus area, but there have been other proposals, including the decision to form this group [Board] of members to develop and license WDDM. Since NO opposition was posted, these too have been approved. Thus we have authority to do what we are doing, and I propose we call ourselves the WDDM Board.


We need to immediately "find" a secretary to compile all these records in one place. Unless we do so, we are operating on quick sand, everything sinking out of site even though it was completed.


We can than make whatever "rules" we choose to continue on. We already asked (begged) all members to join us. They chose not to, than we "are the board". Any one choosing to "join the board", can fill out an application, agree with the responsibilities, and become a board member providing they are not rejected by the rules.


WDDM has, by consensus given us the authority to do what we are doing.


Mirek, you had some rules and proposals which were posted, not contested for a very long time. I suggest we find them, review them and approve those which are necessary to the function of WDDM. This also will help us "start".


ATB BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 11, 2006 12:47AM

The Membership Rules Summary No.2 sums up accurately the recent majority consensus.


Associate Membership allows all interested persons immediately to be WDDM members. This would encourage people to be WDDM members and facilitate WDDM to be a worldwide mass movement. This open membership approach is nothing new and has been adopted by most successful mass organizations including MoveOn.Org which Bruce himself has held up as example for us to follow: [www.world-wide-democracy.net]


However, mass organizations like MoveOn.Org can simply called their “members” Members because it is a proprietary organization. “Members” are, in fact, GUESTS or CUSTOMERS and have to comply with the house rules laid down by the owners without any say whatsoever. If WDDM is similarly organized, then Mirek as the proprietor of the WDDM website could simply lay down all the house rules and all can be happily called “Members” just like MoveOn.Org


But WDDM is not intended to be just any organization. It is a DD organization. So Mirek wants the members to take ownership of WDDM, to formulate the Current Operating Rules and eventually the WDDM Constitution. However, there is a big problem in this approach. Past experience has shown that most WDDM members have little or no interest in the management and decission making of WDDM. They are primarily interested in their own DD projects.


This “inactivity” of the members has caused paralysis to the WDDM decision-making processes and its inability to elect or appoint a committee or board to manage the ordinary business of WDDM and to approve any recommendation or proposal made by such a committee or board to the members, even if there is one, apart from security and other concerns.


This also gives rise to the question whether it is legitimate for some members to take matters into their own hands and to write their own rules and appoint themselves as members of a board or committee for and on behalf of the rest of the members. This is clearly not legitimate in most jurisdictions, especially those based on English laws. So the decisions and rules made by such a board or committee would not be legally binding on the rest of the members.


Moreover, we cannot continue to rely on such ‘inactivity” of the members as a “consensus” as we all know it is not. To continue to do so is dishonest or even arguably fraudent.


There are now basically two chioces before us.


1 Let us go back to the members and ask them to choose to be Ordinary Members or Associate Members with the default being Associate Members. As proposed in the Membership Rules Summary No.2, the Ordinary Members will be vested with the powers to manage and to make decisions for the WDDM, and the Associate Members (current members only) being eligible to apply for Ordinary Membership any time they wish; or


2 Abort this WDDM Renewal Process and re-luanch a new one which the initial operating rules re-set by Mirek as he did with the current renewal process.

Best Regards
Eric Lim



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2006 08:20AM by EricLim.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: GeoKo (IP Logged)
Date: June 12, 2006 04:27PM

Dear DD colleagues,


I absolutely agree with this recent summary of Membership rules, written by Mirek and mirroring exactly whatever I 've proposed recently in different e-mails for the above issue.
Congratulations Mirek and let's begin a procedure for accepting these rules, that will show us simultaneously the decision making rules of WDDM!
We have also to name the current Ordinary members and decide who they finally are in order to have legitimated quorums.


George Kokkas


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: MiKolar (IP Logged)
Date: June 13, 2006 08:22PM

BrEggum   wrote:
... We certainly do not want an Organization within the larger pool or [WDDM Organization] (Association). We certainly do not want or need another ORGANIZATION! Than you begin defining the eligibility of these members to be in the new "Organization". NOT GOOD!
... BrEggum


Bruce,
if you want to build an organization into which you want to invest your effort and perhaps some membership fees, then there must be at least some "fence" built around it, as Eric reasonable argued in his posts. The purpsoe of this "fence" is not to make the organization un-democratic, but to keep it focused on its mission.
Have a look at the current membership of WDDF - click on Memberlists in the header there. Leo doesn't have time to take care of it, and so out of the 90 currently registered members only about 29 are real members interested in democracy/DD, and the rest are just spammers advertising there their products and gambling (I have not checked all accounts, but at least members No. 25-29 and then 34-90 are spammers).
So if you allow such situation in WDDM, have unrestricted admission to WDDM, and allow for changing the roles at any time without further approval, such sleeping spammers may decide one day to show their colors, become all active and out-vote you on anything, e.g. they could propose a vote on selling the domain to one of them, or turning the WDDM site into an online-poker site.


So we either have the choice to put a "fence" around all members - that was our first choice (Summary No. 1), and to have an approval procedure for everybody as they are coming first time to WDDM, even for those who never would want to be active. And we decided that this is not practical - see the previous discussion.


Then the second logical choice was to have this large pool of sympathisers (or Associate Members) that are allowed in without any restrictions, and to try to built a meaningful organizations within this pool, out of those who are interested in such a thing. This actual organization (what I called WDDM proper, no as the opposite of improper, but in the meaning of the "real thing") would be absolutely democratic. And we would put this little "fence" (new member acceptance procedure) only around this smaller real organization.


I do not see any other real practical choice in the present situation, other than to completely abandon this effort.


You asked for my initial rules, consensus based rules, they are all in the archive, particularly on this page: [www.world-wide-democracy.net]
They were just meant to start things up, I tried to impose minimal initial restrictions on those who would be interested in joining WDDM. I hoped that a group will assemble that would start building an interesting organization or association or a collective from scratch without any preconditions. A year ago I hoped that among the professed DD supporters it should be relatively easy to do something like that ...

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2006 11:24PM by MiKolar.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: MiKolar (IP Logged)
Date: June 13, 2006 08:52PM

OK, it seems that out of our discussion group of five members, four already expressed their opinion, three are supporting the "Membership Rules Summary No. 2", one is against. It is not a complete consensus but not so bad (this percentage threshold, like 80% do work smoothly only in large groups, in a group of 5, one person represents already 20%, so we cannot have lesser jumps than 20% in our voting; but I do not know right now what better to do with that as long as we are at small numbers).


So we can accept this proposal just among themselves as George suggests, or we can present this proposal "Membership Rules Summary No. 2" one more time to all the current WDDM members for a vote, give them one week for the vote, and then make a decision. After that, when the proposal is accepted (by a majority of those who would participate in the vote) we can ask them one more time whether they want to become Ordinary Members right now, and if they do not response, they will become Associate Members by default. After that the rules of the proposal (if approved) will kick in. I am personally for this latter approach (give one last chance to everybody).
Because many members have not yet tried to log into the Forum, I would conduct this vote by e-mail only to make things the same for everybody. It would be a simple YES/NO vote, so very easily to tabulate. After that we can use Forum polls only (if needed).
I'll wait at least another 24 hours, if I won't get any objections/other suggestions by that, I'll send out this proposal for vote as described above.


Mirek

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 13, 2006 10:39PM

Dear all,
My suggestion was to have one organization with members having different roles, instead of different memberships. This would effectively divide them. The Board would have authority.


Apparently my suggestion is not acceptable and that is fine with me.


If the choice is down to number two, I agree. It is workable.


Post it as you suggested Mirek, we can go from there.
ATB Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: CommonOne (IP Logged)
Date: June 14, 2006 02:39AM

Hi everyone,


I've been following it all and I agree with most of the recommendations. But following are my thoughts about everything.


Original members should be called FOUNDING MEMBERS. However, it seems more appropriate to distinguish between an ACTIVE FOUNDING MEMBER and an INACTIVE FOUNDING MEMBER. All other inactive members can be called INACTIVE FOUNDING MEMBERS. Those members who wish to actively participate in the growth of WDDM could be considered as ACTIVE MEMBERS, and of those who eventually serve as WDDM OFFICERS or ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS (and not Ordinary Members or Board of Directors), may together be considered as WDDM's OPERATING MEMBERS. Whenever an Officer or Advisory Board Member relinquishes office, he or she could be considered as an Active or Inactive HONORARY ADMINISTRATOR, entitled to all WDDM privileges at the highest levels. I suggest that Advisory Board Members be solicited not only from among our members, but also from NGOs and commercial corporations whose policies suggest their officers may be sympathetic to our objectives. As for all new participants in our discussions, I see no reason why they aren't categorized simply as MEMBERS.


These are more categories than I would like to see, but in reality, if we are going to consider different categories for different levels of activity, then we already have (or unavoidably will have) members who fit into these caegories.


Based upon my belief that the INTERNAL DISCUSSION FOLDER should be available only to those who actively conduct the business of WDDM, plus Active Founding Members and Active Honorary Members, allow me to reedit Mirek's Summary of Rules.


PROPOSED RULES



RULE A: Only the current and past Officers and Advisory Board Members, plus the Active Founding Members shall hold authority to help create or amend the WDDM Operating Rules or Constitution.


RULE B: All members can make suggestions relating to WDDM's operations, but final decisions shall be made only by a consensus of the organization's Operating Members.


RULE C: Any Active Member, within any category, who fails to vote at official WDDM polls (for more than five (5) times or more) during a period of more than six (6) months without an acceptable reason submitted to the Operating Members shall be relegated to inactive status.


RULE D: Any member shall be relegated to inactive status should 75 percent of the Operating Members vote in favor of such a motion.



To become a WDDM MEMBER: an individual must complete the application form found at www.world-wide-democracy.net.


To become an ACTIVE MEMBER: a member shall have actively participated in WDDM discussions for no less than six (6) months and must complete the application form found at www.world-wide-democracy.net.


(if the application forms contain fields for the required info, you won't need any of the below.


Of course, we will need rules or procedures for electing Officers and soliciting Advisory Board Members.


These are my thoughts on the basic structure of WDDM.


Cheers,


Lee



Application for Ordinary Membership:
After being an Associate WDDM Member for a continuous period of three months, an Associate Member can apply to be accepted as an Ordinary Member. If they have not done so before, the Ordinary Member candidates have to supply their full name and surname, and the mailing address. Ordinary Members must indicate their interest in being active in the management of the WDDM.



Accepting an Ordinary Member:
1. The Ordinary Member Application is sent to all the current Ordinary Members for review.
2. The Ordinary Membership Application Review will be completed within 90 days.
3. An applicant will be immediately accepted as a WDDM Ordinary Member if not more than 20% of the current Ordinary members have any objections to her/his Membership.
4. An applicant will be immediately rejected if 80% or more of the Ordinary Members are against her/his Membership.
5. If none of 3. or 4. applies, the application is suspended until a consensus (either 3. or 4.) is achieved.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another group with no special role at all:
WDDM Honored Members are persons who initiated the idea of WDDM and were instrumental in its establishment and worked to maintain WDDM through its initial stages. They do not have to be the current members - this title is an acknowledgement of their historical role.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 14, 2006 03:43AM

I don't think we have completed discussion on these topics, it is premature for the Webmaster to assusme our views on #2, #5 or other possibilities.
BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 14, 2006 04:08AM

Very good points Eric. I have asked for a WDDM definition of DD but this has not been defined. Thus it seems we go on with our different ideas of what DD is trying to adhere to am undefined principle.


I suggest we discuss this a bit more or abort the whole process and begin again as Eric suggests as an alternative.


BrEggum


AS to DD, I subscribe to the Swiss model, as is defined on my website [www.doinggovernment.com],

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 14, 2006 07:35AM

I agree to Mirek's proposal to present the "Membership Rules Summary No. 2" to all the current members for a vote in order to move forward. We cannot and should not assume that they are not interested in this very important matter. Moreover, their membership rights must be respected. It is up to each one of them to accept or decline the Ordinary Membership.


Lee and Bruce have raised certain concerns which can be addressed subsequently and, if supported, the membership rules could be amended accordingly.


In this way, we can move forward step by step.

Best Regards
Eric Lim



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2006 08:07AM by EricLim.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 14, 2006 03:52PM

BrEggum   wrote:
...... I have asked for a WDDM definition of DD but this has not been defined. Thus it seems we go on with our different ideas of what DD is trying to adhere to am undefined principle.


I suggest we discuss this a bit more or abort the whole process and begin again as Eric suggests as an alternative.


Bruce, you are right that we eventually have to define what DD is for WDDM. However, we cannot do this until we have established an effective decision-making procedure which is precisely what we are trying to do by having the proposed membership rules adopted. Once this is done we would have a decision-making body.


Aborting the current renewal process would be the last resort when it has reached an impasse.

Best Regards
Eric Lim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2006 03:54PM by EricLim.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 14, 2006 05:18PM

Dear Eric,
It seems I am in discussion and someone remarks "this is a DD organization and will function as a DD." Thus, to structure WDDM we must know the "rules". That is why I posted this re DD.


Certainly starting over is the last resort. Why are we stopping before the discussion is completed? If we are not "done" and someone declares we are finished, that is aborting before full term is reached.
ATB Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 14, 2006 05:27PM

Responce to Eric and Mirek on post it now proposal.


Mirek   wrote:
WDDM Associate Membership) is granted to all interested who complete the application form at [www.world-wide-democracy.net]
(see also the end of my post at [www.world-wide-democracy.net] for the discussion of the items in this form).
There is no approval requirements for Associate Members. However, their membership can be terminated, if their behavior is in complete contradiction to the WDDM mission.
Associate Members will have access to the interactive facilities of the WDDM site (Forum and Wiki), and can participate in Discussions going on there and post their materials in the Wiki. They are all encouraged to become Ordinary Members.


Becoming an Associate WDDM Member



The completion of the application form at [www.world-wide-democracy.net] is all what is needed. Mirek


Than Mirek says:
BrEggum
... We certainly do not want an Organization within the larger pool or [WDDM Organization] (Association). We certainly do not want or need another ORGANIZATION! Than you begin defining the eligibility of these members to be in the new "Organization". NOT GOOD!
... BrEggum


Bruce,
if you want to build an organization into which you want to invest your effort and perhaps some membership fees, then there must be at least some "fence" built around it, as Eric reasonable argued in his posts. The purpose of this "fence" is not to make the organization un-democratic, but to keep it focused on its mission.
Have a look at the current membership of WDDF - click on Memberlists in the header there. Leo doesn't have time to take care of it, and so out of the 90 currently registered members only about 29 are real members interested in democracy/DD, and the rest are just spammers advertising there their products and gambling (I have not checked all accounts, but at least members No. 25-29 and then 34-90 are spammers).
So if you allow such situation in WDDM, have unrestricted admission to WDDM, and allow for changing the roles at any time without further approval, such sleeping spammers may decide one day to show their colors, become all active and out-vote you on anything, e.g. they could propose a vote on selling the domain to one of them, or turning the WDDM site into an online-poker site.


So we either have the choice to put a "fence" around all members - that was our first choice (Summary No. 1), and to have an approval procedure for everybody as they are coming first time to WDDM, even for those who never would want to be active. And we decided that this is not practical - see the previous discussion.


Dear Mirek, It seems you have prematurely closed comments. Your WDDF example is one where the person simply applies and becomes a member. Than spammers abound. This is exactly what you have proposed in your #2 "automatic membership." All these different memberships and applications, X can do this; Y can not do this, who is to keep track of all of it?
One organization, one membership, different roles i.e. Board, etc. Membership criteria which allows policeing of members and applicants is also necessary.
I believe we were getting close; you waited a bit to start this, what is your rush now?
Regards, BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2006 05:28PM by BrEggum.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 14, 2006 11:56PM

More on Membership and Boards.


WDDM is an Organization; therefore WDDM must be set up following the structure of an Organization. WDDM is not a Nation, it is not a democracy. A democracy requires equality first. i.e. Thomas Paine.


The first page of WDDM site states: All members of the WDDM are dedicated to promoting an understanding of Direct Democracy's benefits and spreading its influence on planet Earth.


Here we have eliminated, kicked to the curb, all those who do not promote or desire Direct Democracy, Marxists etc. Nation's based on Equality could not do that. But we are not a nation, we are an organization and we can restrict who is a member. WDDM has no power what so ever. We can not jail anyone; we can not even take away their homes or cars. WDDM must follow the rule of law in the various countries' it interacts with as well as International Law. WDDM's sole power is to run the WDDM organization, following the Charter and AoA which we are developing at present. This Charter must comply with the National and International laws of the World, so we are really told what and how to do it.


For this reason, WDDM cannot be purely structured on DD principles. DD principles are devised for Nation States and Communities.


WDDM has members. These members could be placed in different groups, however than we would need to monitor these different groups with different rules and criteria. (another headache)


I suggest that all people who become WDDM Members are........WDDM Members.


The problem arose, as it does in all groups of people, that some did not participate in the necessary administrative, planning, organizing etc., tasks necessary for WDDM to function. I suspect that is why many organizations have a "board" that does these necessary tasks. It is also why we have "Representative government". Equality demands it. If only the "academic," or those with "time"
(rich folk) made these decisions our nations would have no "Equality".


Repeatedly WDDM asked members to come forward to accomplish these tasks. Those that finally did are what I choose to call the WDDM Board. We already have membership criteria and rules for the board, as well as discipline criteria if ethical or other errors are made. These many reasons are why WDDM has now adopted a "Board".


Once the "Board" has made decisions, it has been decided to publish these decisions for consideration of the members at large. We already have adopted the consensus method of "election" and will likely adopt the new system Mirek posted. These systems accept a matter if there is little or no opposition to the matter being considered. This is a good system for WDDM. It allows the WDDM Members to have total control of all WDDM functioning. The "DD" part would be if 1% of members have a proposal or suggestion, they may present it to the WDDM Board for consideration. Or if 1% of the WDDM Members disagree with a matter, they may ask the WDDM Board to review it.


This allows all members to have a "say" in all WDDM matters.


As you can see, it is not necessary to have numerous memberships. Members could simply request the WDDM Newsletter and subscribe to that. Perhaps that is all they want to do.Unless the WDDM Member petitions to become a member of the WDDM Board, they may remain simply a WDDM Member like we all are. The only difference in a WDDM Member, and a WDDM Board Member is that the latter individual has committed to, and been accepted by the WDDM Board. The same applies to "Officers". They too are WDDM Members, however they have volunteered (or been drafted) to a position which requires them to commit to considerable work and responsibility.


We have most of this written out as far as "requirements" which are in the applications etc.


A note, Mirek stated concern about spammers and others becoming members. First, an initial screening of the application, likely eliminating "blue eyed lover", and "Lilly lap um up" who apply with those nick names and addresses. Here is where an email to the address given, asking for some brief response such as a brief resume will help determine if the person has real interest in WDDM. Most people understand this is necessary and have no problem with it. Than of course, we have rules if spamming, foul language etc. are caused by a person who has become a WDDM Member, they can be quickly removed from membership. These things need to be written more clearly, but we are in that process. It may be that a membership committee could review these applicants.


So again, I suggest we develop a simplified process of membership, rules and of course adopt the "WDDM Board" or what ever you would like to call it.


Of course if the majority still wants the long complicated #2 that is your choice.


Regards, BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 15, 2006 07:55AM

Bruce,


I find your emails very confusing. They often contradict each other.


In this email, you say that WDDM is an Organisation and has members whereas in one of your previous emails you said that it has not yet been "established" as an organisation and therefore, it has no members: [www.world-wide-democracy.net]


BrEggum   wrote:
The idea to form WDDM caused WDDM to "exist," it however was not ESTABLISHED as an organization yet. Therefore, what we are doing is ESTABLISHING an Organization. WE are "the group" who has taken this responsibility. We do not have to ask "the members" because there is no Organization of members! There is a group of people. This group of people have been asked if they want to participate in ESTABLISHING this WDDM Organization and they declined by their absence.


Therefore we don' need anyone's approval; don't need to ask any one's permission, we are IT!






BrEggum   wrote:
Repeatedly WDDM asked members to come forward to accomplish these tasks. Those that finally did are what I choose to call the WDDM Board. We already have membership criteria and rules for the board, as well as discipline criteria if ethical or other errors are made. These many reasons are why WDDM has now adopted a "Board".


Here you are creating another confusion, this time a very, very big one. You want to use membership criteria for creating a "WDDM Board". Membership criteria are for admission of members whereas a board is usually elected by the members. Pretending that a category of members to be a "WDDM Board" is going to confuse not only many members, but more importantly anyone who has to deal with WDDM, especially the government authorities.


Moreover whether we call this category of members "WDDM Board" or Ordinary Members, the problems of managing them remain the same. There is no magic in the label "WDDM Board".


Best Regards
Eric Lim


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: CommonOne (IP Logged)
Date: June 15, 2006 10:16AM

Somehow, I thought by now that everyone involved in these discussions understand that WDDM is no more than a discussion group and the purpose of these current discussions is to try to transform it into an organization. NOT A NEW ORGANIZATION, but an evolvement of the old.


As for a "fence" around the participants of the discussion groups, I also thought that had been settled. Mirek has asked me to be a moderator of discussions, a request which I have accepted. But the solution to counter spamming of irrelevant and contrary material is simply to have all postings go to a moderator's page (to be checked daily and screened) before placing an acceptable into the proper discussion page. If we're afraid of our enemies taking control of the website,can anything be simpler than this procedure to prevent them?


Lee


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 15, 2006 01:07PM

Very right you are Lee. Thanks BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 15, 2006 03:44PM

Dear Eric, Mirek and all,



I thank Eric very much for discussing this. We humans have a difficult time understanding each other, example any family interacting. We think we heard what someone said, but we do not always know what they MENT. Than with our miss-understanding, we make false assumptions. I catch myself in this often. Add different languages, culture, we need a lot of discussion to understand one another.


I will attempt to explain myself, it may take a few attempts however so ask more questions so we can all understand ourselves.


When the group of people decided to create a WDDM "Organization," (this group called it an "Organization.") They could have called it a club, a group, they called it what they wanted to create, which is allowed by free speech. The only membership criteria at that time was members could invite people they thought would support the WDDM DD idea. Thus I was later invited to be a member of WDDM "Organization". (as they called it)


George Kokkas had submitted to Greek Courts to establish WDDM as an "organization," and to assign the name WDDM to the "organization". The Greek courts stated that WDDM could not be recognized as an ORGANIZATION until it had the AoA documents completed which require membership criteria, a constitution or charter, purpose, financial resources and documentation of expenses and income etc. Also a declaration regarding taxes.


A WDDM precedent for "committee" is the WDDM Executive Committee which presented this information to the Greek Court:


From George Kokkas; "Such an attempt has been done (registered officially before the same Court in Athens, since year 2000, signed in the name of the former Executive Committee of WDDM- Ted Becker, Jiri Polak, G. Sagi and me- but there was no final discussion of that application, since we never finished our Chapter-Articles of Association). Therefore we have to finish this Chapter first, that has to be signed by 20 natural persons at least, presenting it before the above Court in order to have an official Association, under the Greek Law."


Therefore we have this confusion. WDDM has called itself an "organization" with members, however it cannot be recognized (politically correct term) as an ORGANIZATION because it does not have the required criteria to be one.


I suggest we use the term WDDM GROUP instead of calling it an organization until it is an Organization recognized by some political body as such.


So we are all members of a GROUP whose purpose is to establish a WDDM ORGANIZATION. To accomplish this, we polled the WDDM Group and asked for all who would actively participate in this work. The members who "volunteered" are George Kokkas, Eric Lim, Mirek Kolar, Lee Gottlieb, Bruce Eggum.


We derive our authority from the group to complete the Organization Certification by the direction of the "original" group in 2000 who asked the group to complete the necessary papers to become a WDDM Organization.


WDDM Group has no elected officials, so we cannot be an "Executive Committee."


I agree there is no magic in the label WDDM Board, however I believe it is descriptive of what it is. The WDDM Board can than make rules for itself, and begin the job of creating a WDDM (organization) This is certainly better than creating a new membership.


Thus I again submit the motion that we, George Kokkas, Eric Lim, Mirek Kolar, Lee Gottlieb, Bruce Eggum, of the WDDM Group, have formed a "WDDM Board" to establish WDDM as a certified, politically correct ORGANIZATION.


Members can be added to the WDDM "Board"if they fill out the "application" (to be created)


Note to Mirek,
Posted by: MiKolar (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2006 01:26PM
Bruce and Eric,


I think we still have a problem with proper terminology that is the source of the most recent disagreement between you. "Board" as I used it was the source of the problem, I think.
So I changed terminology (back to the Associate and Ordinary members), and tried to accommodate your other suggestions and concerns, and with thus modified proposal started a new Thread (topic) called Membership Rules Summary No. 2.
Board could be a body within the organization of the Ordinary Members, but using this term to call so the whole organization was apparently misleading from me.


mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]


Dear Mirek, I hope this clears this matter up. The WDDM Board is not a whole organization, it is members of the WDDM Group, who volunteered to create the necessary AoA items so that WDDM could be established as the WDDM Organization. BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
WDDM is a "Union of Persons"
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 15, 2006 07:40PM

Let us get the facts regarding WDDM right:


WDDM as a "Union of Persons" under Greek Law does exist since June 2000 (See George's email dated 22 May 2006 to Bruce reproduced below). This WDDM has members. They are here: [www.world-wide-democracy.net] This WDDM can be currently loosely referred to as an association or more accurately a cyber community.


On the other hand, WDDM as a REGISTERED organization under Greek Law does not exist and it has no members. It failed to exist because the 4 promotors had failed to submit the required documents to the Greek Authorities.


There is an odd reference in the email to this group of 4 promoters as "the former Executive Comittee of WDDM". An Executive Committe is elected by the members of an organisation. In this case, how does a yet-to-be registered organization without members elect an Executive Committee? Perhaps, there is a translational inaccuracy from Greek to English. It appears to be a Pro-tem Committee for the Conversion of WDDM (a "Union of Persons" ) into a registered organization under Greek Law.


Now what are the five of us doing here? As far as I know, we have been discussing "the WDDM organizational structure and the development of the membership guidelines" ( [www.world-wide-democracy.net] ) for the renewed WDDM as a "Union of Persons".


I know nothing about any discussion for the registration of WDDM as a registered organisation under Greek Law nor have I been informed of such a discussion. It is not true that I as a WDDM member have been asked "to participate in ESTABLISHING this WDDM Organization (a proposed Greek registered organisation)". I believe most of the other WDDM members are in a similar position.


Anyway, Bruce's proposed registration of WDDM as a registered organisation under Greek Law is an entirely different matter. It can in no way affect the existing membership rights and status of the WDDM members as a "Union of Persons".


Moreover, it is preposterous to call the five of us as a "WDDM Board" because such a board of a non-existent organisation with non-existent members (since the proposed registration of WDDM as a registered organisation under Greek Law has not been done) could not exist. The "WDDM Board" cannot be a board for the WDDM as a "Union of Persons" since Bruce has taken the stand that there are no WDDM members, just a group of person with no powers to elect or appoint a "WDDM Board". More pertinently, this group of persons have not elected or appoint such a Board.


Apparently, for what Bruce wants to do, he has first to form "a Pro-tem Committee for the registration of WDDM as a registered organisation in Athens under Greek Law". He has to find willing persons to join his Pro-tem Committee; eventually not less than 20 natural persons are needed. And he can count me out as I do not see any possibility under the present circumstances that WDDM could be registered as an organisation in Athens, and even if the registration could be successfully done, it is not sustainable without a reasonable stable budget for the annual registration and compliance costs and administration and other expenses, without even considering the legal issues that would arise from involvement in his project.


Furthermore, the organisation Bruce wants to register has to have a different name from WDDM as there cannot be two legal entities with the same name, as WDDM as a "Union of Persons" already exists. George, would you like to confirm this?


If I understand George correctly what he is saying is the conversion of WDDM as a "Union of Persons" into a registered organization, but this cannot be done without the approval of the current WDDM members or the WDDM as a "Union of Persons". To go to the Greek court to file false documents claiming we are members of a "WDDM Board" of the WDDM as a "Union of Persons" when we are clearly not is most probably a criminal act under Greek Law as in other jurisdictions.


After going round in circles, we cannot run away from the basic facts. WDDM as a "Union of Persons" does exists and it has members. We have no power to deny them their membership rights. At the moment, we can only help WDDM as a "Union of Persons" to develop into a flourishing cyber community that could one day acquire sufficient resources, especially financial and human, for registration as a viable, real world organisation. Until that day, let us focus on the urgent tasks at hand.


Best Regards
Eric Lim






Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 06:32:06 +0300


Dear Bruce,


there are two ways to establish a non profit organisation in Greece and a third informal choice, as we exist since June 2000, just after the 2nd Int. Congress of D.D., having finished its works in Delphi, Greece.


First, we may establish a non profit Association, asking for a kind of approval from the Court of the seat (Athens, as decided) after a discussion of our relative application , made by a 3 to 5 member Comittee. (Do you think that I should put the names and addresses of the recipients of this message? Please send me then details and your type of Signatures). Such an attempt has been done (registered officially before the same Court in Athens, since year 2000, signed in the name of the former Executive Comittee of WDDM- Ted Becker, Jiri Polak, G. Sagi and me- but there was no final discussion of that application, since we never finished our Chapter-Articles of Association).


Therefore we have to finish this Chapter first, that has to be signed by 20 natural persons at least,presenting it before the above Court in order to have an official Association, under the Greek Law.The cost of the whole procedure (of course without lawyers' remuneration that this work is an offer of me to the WDDM) can be 800-1000 Euros, plus the necessary publications of the Court decision in a newspaper that has a cost more expensive for bigger papers.


Our other choice is to make a non profit Company, even with a Chapter signed by two perons at least, but we have to follow rules for Administration, taxation and peronal responsibilities of the persons that sign it, which make this form not suitable for WDDM principles and Structure.The cost is a bit cheaper than the Association's cost.


The alternative is what we call legally " Union of Persons" under the relative Constitution's Clause, that may be unofficial, without typical licences from Authorities. It then has to prove its existence practically (de facto) through publicised documents, as printed pages of our site etc. That's the way we exist as WDDM since year 2000, although I think that we are now mature enough to proceed with the first choice, when we finish our Articles of Association and have the signatures of 20 ordinary members.


Of course WDDM may be represented in the meantime and temporarily by our Greek NGO "Forum for Citizens' Democracy" or by our Political DD Party ("European Sympoliteia,Direct Democracy"), as it happens now temporarily with our logo, borrowed from these entities, until we change it after the International Competition for our new logo, that Lee proposed in Prague last September.


Please let me have all your answers and choices to the above alternatives, soon.


George L. Kokkas



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2006 08:34PM by EricLim.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 15, 2006 09:30PM

CommonOne   wrote:
Somehow, I thought by now that everyone involved in these discussions understand that WDDM is no more than a discussion group and the purpose of these current discussions is to try to transform it into an organization. NOT A NEW ORGANIZATION, but an evolvement of the old.


WDDM is a "Union of Persons" under Greek Law. See my reply to Bruce.


CommonOne   wrote:
As for a "fence" around the participants of the discussion groups, I also thought that had been settled. Mirek has asked me to be a moderator of discussions, a request which I have accepted. But the solution to counter spamming of irrelevant and contrary material is simply to have all postings go to a moderator's page (to be checked daily and screened) before placing an acceptable into the proper discussion page. If we're afraid of our enemies taking control of the website,can anything be simpler than this procedure to prevent them?


I welcome you to be a moderator for the discussions.


Would having all postings go to a moderator's page (to be checked daily and screened) before placing an acceptable into the proper discussion page tantamount to censorship of members' postings and non-transparency for a group aspiring to be a democratic organization, apart from holding up the discussions?


How does the screening of spams prevent persons with ill-intentions from registering as WDDM members, from acquiring automatic voting rights after the three months' period and acting together to take control of WDDM when they have sufficient numbers to outvote the existing "active" members?

Best Regards
Eric Lim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2006 09:32PM by EricLim.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: WDDM is a "Union of Persons"
Posted by: CommonOne (IP Logged)
Date: June 17, 2006 09:13AM

Thank you Bruce,


You have defined our situation very precisely. Let's move on. I'm certain that between those of us who are trying to move ahead that we can provide 20 signatures, and the forms that are necessary to form a true organization, but I'm not at all certain that we can raise the necessary funds. Until George gives us a true bottom line and we itemize our individual donations, we will not know if we can do what we want to do.


Lee


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Membership Rules Summary No. 2
Posted by: CommonOne (IP Logged)
Date: June 17, 2006 09:28AM

Hi Eric, and all


I believe reviewing posts for this or any discussion group in order to retain the stability and integrity of the discussions is normal procedure for almost all discussion groups found under "lists." Filtering posts has nothing to do with depriving an indiviudal of his or her rights. Anyone can become a participant of WDDM discussions--ANYONE--but not anyone should be given the ""right" or opportunity to post messages that disrupt its normal, positive flow.


Cheers,


Lee


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Very important omission in our message of 19 Jun 2006 to the members
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 19, 2006 06:04PM

This is an urgent message.


There is a very important omission in our message to the members. We should make clear to all that all current members are eligible to apply to be an "Administrator" any time they wish and there should be no problem approving their application. There is no qualifying period for them.


Moreover, the message is not Membership Rules Summary No. 2. It contains important changes that have not been discussed by us. I have been prevented from replying to Lee's proposal because of the permission error that denies most of us permission to post/reply at the Forum from Friday, 16 June 2006 till now.


What has been agreed by the majority of us is Membership Rules Summary No. 2.


I have to go for meeting now and willl be busy for the next few days. I shall comment on the aforesaid important changes as soon as I can.

Best Regards
Eric Lim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2006 06:06PM by EricLim.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Very important omission in our message of 19 Jun 2006 to the members
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 19, 2006 06:38PM

Right you are Eric. There is no review of application listed, not even by webmaster. This will result in much spam and abuse of our email address and site. Trojans and virus will be welcomed by this policy. We had discussed the process of approving this application and it is very necessary!


BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Very important omission in our message of 19 Jun 2006 to the members
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 21, 2006 09:35AM

I refer to my message dated 19 June 2006, and, in particular, to the changes in the Proposal made to the Membership Rules Summary No. 2.


Our proposal to the members sounds like we asking them to legitimize the five of us as an oligarchy for WDDM:


Here are the keys sentences:


The proposal is attached below.
The vote on this proposal is a simple YES/NO vote.


.....



THE PROPOSAL that is the subject of this vote (also posted at: ):


Beginning of the proposal




WDDM Membership Structure and Rules




SUMMARY:


.....


PROPOSED RULES:


RULE A: Only the current Administrators shall hold authority to create
or amend
the WDDM Operating Rules or Constitution.


RULE B: All members can make suggestions relating to WDDM's operations,
but
final decisions shall be made only by a consensus of the organization's
Administrators.


.....


To become an ADMINISTRATOR: a member shall have actively participated
in WDDM
discussions for no less than six (6) months and must complete the
application
form found at www.world-wide-democracy.net.


End of the proposal



Attachment to the Proposal:


......


3. An applicant will be immediately accepted as a WDDM Administrator if
not
more than 20% of the current Administrators have any objections to
her/his
Membership.
4. An applicant will be immediately rejected if 80% or more of the
Administrators are against her/his Administrator Membership.
5. If none of 3. or 4. applies, the application is suspended until a
consensus
(either 3. or 4.) is achieved.





[The entire proposal is in The Proposal. Nothing else in the Forum including Membership Rules Summary No. 2 forms part of the proposal].


In simple language, the proposal when approved means the five of us would decide who else could be an Administrator (an unfortunate word to use, because the word ordinarily means part of the management for those who does not know the special meaning Mirek intends to give it).


That is why my previous message highlights "a very important omission": "We should make clear to all that all current members are eligible to apply to be an "Administrator" any time they wish and there should no problem approving their application. There is no qualifying period for them". In other words, we do not consider ourselves to have acquired any special powers for reason only that we have been active behind the members' backs.


The matter is severely aggravated by the following statement:


"To become an ADMINISTRATOR: a member shall have actively participated
in WDDM
discussions for no less than six (6) months and must complete the
application
form found at www.world-wide-democracy.net."


This makes the five us appear absolute dictators at WDDM: that we have arrogated to ourselves the powers to decide who has "actively particiapted" (in the WDDM discussions without clearly defining what "actively particiapted" means.). This means that the members will completely be at our mercy for the approval of their applications.


So the most probable consequence will be that few would want to apply to be "Administrators". This is the exact opposite of what we want. Worse still, together with Rules A and B, some may have the impression that the "Administrators" would form the ruling class.


Compare the above statement with the one it has replaced in the majority consensual Membership Rules Summary No. 2:


"After being an Associate WDDM Member for a continuous period of three months, an Associate Member can apply to be accepted as an Ordinary Member. If they have not done so before, the Ordinary Member candidates have to supply their full name and surname, and the mailing address. Ordinary Members must indicate their interest in being active in the management of the WDDM."


The basic requirement here is Associte Membership for a continuous period of three months, straight and simple. And we can justify this requirement for new Associate Members because Associate Membership is open to all who wants to join WDDM.


Now I am in a dilemma. I cannot vote "Yes" for the Proposal without qualification.


Best Regards
Eric Lim


PS: In order not to confuse matters, I shall comment separately on Rules C and D in another message since they are about different things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2006 09:44AM by EricLim.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Very important omission in our message of 19 Jun 2006 to the members
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 22, 2006 08:02AM

[Lee]: "I have no objections to Eric's 3 additions to the proposal. However,#3, #4 & #5 can be combined simply saying
A vote by 80% or more of the current Administration shall decide whether or not an applicant becomes an Administrator. Should a consensus not be reached, the application will be shelved for six months. (or whatever)"


[Eric]:
Lee has misread my message. I did not make any additions to the proposal. Those 3 items are part of the Proposal. My message is to show how the Proposal may hit many members reading it without a clear understanding of the majority consensus of our "active" group.


Lee have a vaild point in wanting a higher majority for decision making, but 80% is too high. However, this is a separate matter to be discussed later on. We are currently trying to finalize the Membership Rules.



[Lee]:
"As far as the word "Administrator," it can't be helped for that is exactly what we
are planning to do--to initiate an organization and to administer it. ...."


[Eric]:
No, Lee. If you have read the Proposal and the earlier part of the discussions at the Forum on Membership Rules carefully, the majority consensus is on encouraging the formation and development of an "organization" of "active members" from a bigger pool of people who support WDDM or are interested in its activities or resources without wanting to participate in the discussions and in the voting. Mirek has described this proposed "organization" as "WDDM proper" in the Membership Rules Summary No. 2.


{Bruce, George and Mirek: Please confirm the majority consensus I have stated above}


No, we are not electing "Adminstrators" or any other management staff at the moment. We are trying to organize "WDDM proper" with "active" members who would participate in discussions and voting. This is why the proposal is called "WDDM Membership Structure and Rules" and not "the Election of WDDM Officers".



[Lee]:
".... And why should those current members who are not taking part in this effort become Administrators after the fact. If they wish to participate at a later time, I do believe they should formally apply for the position.


Though I don't know all of them, I respect them for initiating WDDM, they are my kind of people. But if they don't participate in this effort (for whatever reason) then I don't believe any of them deserves to be an Administrator without telling us why he or she would make a good one."



[Eric]:
This is a misunderstanding arising from calling the "active" members of "WDDM proper" as Administrators. Once "WDDM proper" is established, the "active" members of this "organization" could then proceed to elect the WDDM Board as proposed Bruce, if needed or desired, especially when there is a sufficiently large number of "active members". This board is the Board of the "WDDM proper" of "active" members.



This WDDM Board could then proceed to conduct WDDM ordinary business including the appointment of any Administrator, Manager or any other WDDM Officer as needed, but it will be accountable to the "active" members who would retain the powers at all times to recall the entire Board or any member of the Board or to appoint new ones. This would make WDDM a bottom-up organization that is very different from the top-down approach of the organizations of the existing political system.


[Lee]:
"And Dictators we're not. We're activists, and if we five are the ones to make this dream a reality, then I believe we five should be the Administrators ( for a specific period of time so that others who wish may help share the load)"


[Eric]:
Yes, we are not dictators. So it is important for us not to appear to be so. If we are elected to any position, we are elected to serve the members, and not to rule over them. This is part of the dream of a DD organization that we want to make it reality. It is going to to be tough, but it is the challenge that we have to overcome to achieve DD or true democracy.


Best Regards
Eric Lim


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Very important omission in our message of 19 Jun 2006 to the members
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 22, 2006 11:19AM

Dear Eric and all,


The matter has been submitted for a vote, so we can just wait and see what questions arise. Perhaps the vote will be favorable, than we of the present "WDDM Union of Persons," will be the appointed bunch charged with the responsibility to DRAFT the rest of the needed structure for WDDM Org.


There is no reason we should stop doing this. I do not know how to deal with multiple memberships in one group of people. I join a group, and I am a member period. So I will leave that up to you folks.


I did put this on a WIKI web page here:
[www.world-wide-democracy.net]


This page you can edit and re-write as you see fit.
Regards, Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
The very democratic future of WDDM now at stake
Posted by: EricLim (IP Logged)
Date: June 22, 2006 06:58PM

[Bruce]:
“…. I do not know how to deal with multiple memberships in one group of people. I join a group, and I am a member period. So I will leave that up to you folks.”


This reply is ambiguous. The question is whether you have agreed to Membership Rules Summary No. 2 that proposes the creation of “WDDM proper”. Yes/No?


After reviewing Lee’s latest message last night in reply to my earlier message, it is abundantly clear that he has interpreted the Proposal to the Members as an election of us as WDDM Administrators with absolute powers. This is what the letters of the Proposal say ( [www.world-wide-democracy.net] ) although Mirek has already clarified that the Proposal was “in spirit” identical with the majority consensual Membership Rules Summary No. 2. We are now approaching a slippery slope that would end in an extremely undemocratic WDDM preaching DD or true democracy.


Moreover, we have also received two strong and valid objections to the Proposal from Bernard Clayson and Goerges Metanomski that it is extremely undemocratic. The matter has gone beyond voting for Membership Rules. The very democratic mission of WDDM is now at stake.


In view of the above, I have voted against the Proposal and at the same time, I have pleaded for as many WDDM members as possible to join us in the “active” group, especially to help in framing the Membership and Decision-making Rules:


“Hi Georges and Bernard,


I am one of the five "active" members who have participated in trying to establish a functioning WDDM and I salute both of you for being quick in defending DD or true democracy.


I join both of you in voting against the Proposal. My reasons are here: [www.world-wide-democracy.net]


We do have an interesting, majority consensual proposal. It is here: [www.world-wide-democracy.net] It is called Membership Rules Summary No. 2. It is to address the problems of "inactive" members and of an open membership for new members. I believe that it would have the support of both of you, if you give it careful consideration.


Unfortunately, in presenting Membership Rules Summary No. 2 to the members for voting, there were some last minute changes to it that makes the Proposal what it is including the regrettable use of the word "Administrators". It appears the last minute changes that contradict the majority consensus were made to accommodate a dissenting view.


We obviously need the help of both of you and as many other WDDM members as possible to establish a functioning WDDM, especially in framing the Membership and Decision-making Rules.


So please join the "active" group now by replying to this email and give us whatever help you all can render.


Best Regards
Eric Lim”


My vote and message has not yet appeared on the WDDM mail list.

Best Regards
Eric Lim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2006 07:01PM by EricLim.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


Get Firefox!       Powered by Phorum.       PHP