Re: WDDM future

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

I agree with all of Eric's answers, but A7.

I think that every one of the members should be free to post
what one likes better as a start -- PROVIDED ONLY each
one declares what is the specific purpose of one's post.

If one's post purpose were omitted or insufficiently reasoned,
any list member list can check it out as off-topic and point it
out to the list with subject "Off Topic Warning" (OTW).

After two (or three) of such OTW warnings, the warned
member will be moderated by a moderator, who will make
it overt each time the why to the moderated one.

Of course, also the posts with subject "OTW" must undergo
the same rule.

(The purpose of this post of mine goes to discuss how to
moderate the moderator's power. Perhaps there are better
solutions to this democratic problem)

regards,   antonio



At 9:59 -0800 19-12-2005, lpc1998 wrote:
> Proposed questions:
>
>     1. Why have you become a WDDM member?
>
>
> A1      To make some contributions for the advancement of global
> true democracy
>
>
> 2. What should WDDM try to achieve?
>
>
> A2      To achieve global true democracy
>
>
> 3. Does WDDM need a decision making mechanism (voting)?
>
> A3      Yes, it certainly does. Otherwise some individuals or groups
> of individuals would make decisions for and on behalf of WDDM
>
>
> 4. Is there any point to wait any longer that any spontaneous
> progress
> (self-organization) will be made on issues that were moved to
> <http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/AdjournedHistoricalTopics>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/AdjournedHistoricalTopics
> section?
>
> A4      No, because WDDM as presently structured or evolved is
> primarily focused on being a repository of DD resources with
> contributions from members. This it has done reasonably well
> especially with some initially enthusiastic members, but there is
> very little on building a DD community.
>
>
> 5. Should instead a small group of active WDDM members formulate
> all the
> basic documents (Mission. Goals, Rules, Voting procedures)?
>
>
> A5      Yes, this is a necessity in the formation stage of the new
> WDDM, but this group should be open to all members who want to
> contribute to the drafting of the basic documents, provided the
> drafting is done publicly and transparently and the draft shall be
> the adopted by WDDM only when there is, at least, a clear majority
> (50% + 1 of the members) actually voted in favour of it. We shall no
> longer rely on a “silent majority” which is often a false majority
> and blatantly undemocractic. In other words, a proposal has majority
> (at least 50% + 1) support or simply it does not.
>
>
> 6. Do you want to be a part of the group?
>
> A6      Yes, I do with the little I can.
>
>
> 7. Should the WDDM mailing list be fully moderated (any postings
> would have
> to be approved by one or two moderators to avoid tons of junk mail)?
>
> A7      Yes and more.  The WDDM mailing list should be reserved for
> the exclusive use of WDDM for its communications with the members.
> Members’ discussions and postings should be in a community bulletin
> board where such discussions and postings would not annoy
> disinterested members.
(remaining quote deleted)