Re: WDDM future

["M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>]

Jiri Polak writes:
> If
> some of the original members of the WDDM do not wish to reform it
> according to Mirek´s ideas, I suggest that this name could be reserved for
> the original version, while the new version might be called e.g. WDDM(r)
> or something like that. Personally, I am not interested in formulating
> rules. I´ll accept what the majority decides (if it´s acceptable to me).
> Sincerely,                   Jiri

This may not be a bad idea - to avoid unnecessary bad feelings.

Bruce Eggum did big progress with his Wiki Home page - put there hos
perspective on the problems of the old WDDM. I put a link to this
prominently on the WDDM Wiki main page.

I also started a new Project page "Open WDDM widely to everybody?"
It has this initial text (mine):
I am not against allowing anybody to register without prior approval of
their applications.
However, before we do that, we should have clear statements of goals and
guidelines what is acceptable on this site. I think that everybody agrees
that we do not have here anything that would be not compatible with our goal
of promoting DD.
Probably no commercial advertising, no pornography links, no personal
attacks.
Let's formulate this clearly, put it up. I'll then open the registration to
everybody.
After that, we would remove those accounts that are repeatedly, after
initial warnings, clearly violating the posted rules.
WddmAdmin

Mirek


> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Gottlieb" <acommon1(at)peoplepc.com>
> To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: WDDM and WDDF Forum
>
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > To answer Mirek's question, "what is the Mission of WDDM?"
> >
> > If it is not to discuss ways to promote the growth of direct democracy
> > everywhere in the world, then I am wasting my time reading the
> > messages on this site--which for the most part have been rather
> > trivial and irrelevant to the prime topic.
> >
> > It seems to me that WDDF and WDDM are indeed two different groups
> > with, perhaps, two different objectives, so I agree with Mirek, let's
> > clearly state the objectives of WDDF right here and now so that
> > those of us who are tired of mere talk can get down to the business of
> > creating a real world DD organization (as opposed to this virtual world).
> >
> > On the subject of strict procedural policies, as Mirek suggests, as
> > opposed
> > to the the informal and free contributions of members and nonmembers
> > alike
> > as suggested by Leo--my first thoughts are that strict procedures have
> > always been necessary in most all organized groups wanting positive
> > results.
> > But DD is an animal of a different nature so perhaps we can follow Leo's
> > guidance for a while to see how it goes. If we don't like the results, we
> > can
> > always create rules and select a moderator to enforce them. We should be
> > willing to try anything that encourages democratic procedures.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Lee G.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>
> > Sent: Apr 17, 2005 2:47 AM
> > To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> > Subject: Re: WDDM and WDDF Forum
> >
> > Hi again!
> > Here is a few more words from me:
> > Maybe WDDF and WDDM may just become complemetary parts of the world-wide
> > network that we want to build.
> > By the way, what is the Mission of WDDF? I could not find it.
> >
> > And more important, what are the mission/goals of our WDDM? We have
> > gathered here because we have at least one thing in common: we want to
> > advance somehow DD. We differ in many details on how to do it.
> > I think we should first try to find some common basis, all the unites us.
> > We should not hurry too much, go step by step, when one thing is clear,
> > move onto the next one.
> > Which technical means we will be using is not too much important.
> > I think we really need rather strict procedural rules, that everybody is
> > willing to observe. Then we should formulate better mission and some
> > goals.
> > It is not important now what we call ourselves (group, association,
> > community, ...). We should create a clearer picture of us, so other
> > people
> > might decide whether to join or not.
> > For all these we really need somebody (a moderator), who would keep the
> > discussion organized, and be accepted by everybody. It should be rather
> > soon
> > somebody else than me. Are there any volunteers? What about Bernard
> > Clayson??? :-)
> >
> > I also recommend we have some ethics rules, such a strong ban on any
> > personal attacks. We could use Wikipedia ethics standards. (Does WDDF
> > have
> > something like that?)
> >
> > And it would be nice if somebody from the old WDDM formulated for the
> > record what positive could we take over from their experience. That might
> > be
> > a good step for the reconcilliation with the past, and a new start.
> >
> > Mirek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > THE FUTURE WILL BE WHATEVER
> > CURRENT GENERATIONS WILL IT TO BE
> > __________________________________
> > www.voicesfordd.com
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > PeoplePC Online
> > A better way to Internet
> > http://www.peoplepc.com