[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00621: Re: [WDDM] Poll results posted: interesting read

From: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:09:41 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Poll results posted: interesting read

Anyone contemplating building a grass-roots organization should
benefit by seeing accounts of successful "nested networks"
www.sociocracy.biz or
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sturnbull/

-- Doug Everingham
====

From: "Bernard Clayson" <bernard-clayson(at)shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue May 30, 2006 3:23:06 AM Australia/Brisbane
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Poll results posted: interesting read
Reply-To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Hi Mirek and all,

I had intended to respond but I was too involved locally, then forgot, sorry
about that.
However, Mirek effectively summed up my earlier emails.

Ditto with the issue about water, I did not vote on it because it failed to
account for perception i.e. some people take the right to water as a right
to use 20 acre inches a year on a half acre garden paradise in the desert.
I addressed the problem of resources in 'Consequences', I also addressed the
problem of perceptions in 'Perspective'.

Which brings me back to the reason for the WDDM poll i.e. what next.

1. WDDM is long on advocates/theorists, short on activists, and whilst the
former are useful they lack the experience of the people who are engaged
with the public. There is nearly six and half billion perceptions out there
that need to be accounted for, and to even start to understand that one
needs to be involved with the public.
Democracy needs to START with the public, not END with.

2. If an internet based group can't organise a multi-level communication
system it will never be considered a serious authority on a multi-level
topic/subject like alternative government.
It has a single level communications system (the website is good .... up to
a point, for those who have broadband and the time to play with it, I don't
have either).
I get over a hundred emails a day from different and diverse sources of
information which I can read, and/or respond to, offline at my 'leisure'.
Yet WDDM is trying to encompass everything in to a single communication
channel. Resolving it is not rocket science, everyone one does it as part of
their normal living. I addressed that problem with Phoenix, yet there is no
interest, no ackowledgement of the need, or alternative proposals, to
resolve the issue.
Yet WDDM aspires to propose an alternative to representative
government!!!!!!!

The following is my submission to the web from April last year.


WDDM - Structure

Possible structural options that the WDDM members could consider - my view
of their pro's and con's:

- Organisation -

If it is be an organisation, the implication is it would act on behalf of
the members, that in turn implies -

a) empowering selected people to speak on behalf of the organisation and
it's
members, which will require -

1. procedure to establish/confirm the opinion of the members.
2. rules which the selected would have to conform to.
3. strict penalties for failing to comply.


b) The need for funds to support the organisational structure (internally
and externally)
1. Funds can be obtained from many sources, the real problem occurs when the
source is removed, the organisation would collapse.
2. The easiest way to break any organisation, or industry, is to make
available large sums of money (grants etc) which would then increase the
infrastructure and overheads ....... then cut off the money supply.

c) Voting/Consensus.
1. The members would leave/delegate the action to the organisation.
2. Individual initiative would be eliminated due to needing approval of the
other members.
3. Theoretical objections would over-rule practical application due to the
lack of practical experience.


- Association -

Implies/requires action by the members.
a) The core of the association needs nothing more than the members have now
i.e. the means to communicate.
1. The structural requirements would/could be simple and least cost.

b) The power of WDDM would be in the individual members' willingness to act
on their own initiative.
1. There is not, nor can be, one way to achieve democracy due to the
historic, cultural and social differences that exist world-wide.
2. The existing power structures in different countries may/will need
different solutions to resolve the situation.
3. Theoreticians can advise, but theory (by definition is untested) can only
be a guide, the responsibility for the actions must be with the ones
prepared to make the decision to act.
4. All WDDM members should support the actions of members that fit within
the frame of the Mission Statement

c) An example of the above was in the Public run Village Referendum
http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/referendum/
1. It challenged politicians, officials, and corporate power,
2. It claimed, not requested, the right of the citizens.
3. It was done as a citizen (I did not use my position as a Parish
Councillor).
4. I knew I had broken the rules, I suspect I broke a few laws.
5. To cover the potential of retaliation on the other people involved I
asked for some international help, requesting they emailed the Chief
Executive, and the Leader of the Council, with copies to the local papers,
congratulating them on supporting the referendum i.e. it was a Catch-22.
6. Mistakes were made, lessons learned, I would be reluctant to claim the
lessons can be defined as global rules, but they do indicate items that need
attention.



Only the individual can make those decisions according to their own
situation.


- Summary -



a) An association can grow/evolve to become an organisation but it is
difficult to imagine a devolution from organisation to association.
1. Unclear as to how many members the group would need to in order to be an
effective organisation.
2. Ditto with how much money.

b) Association Communication Structure (I would suggest something similar to
Phoenix
http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/phoenix.htm )
1.The principle is - (using Yahoo type principles and terminology)

1) Central list i.e. WDDM
2) Continent lists i.e. WDDM (Europe)
3) Country lists WDDM (UK)

2. Committee
The founder members in each of the lowest level list form a committee and
start a Country list.
The reason for the committee is to
1) get more than one perspective in any reports issued
2) to have the ability to translate reports in to other languages of their
multi-cultural society.
3) be active.
4) publish their own country website.

3. List 'Owner'
The nominated member of that committee becomes
1) the list 'owner', the other members being 'moderators'.
2) the one who can publish reports of any activities on the Continental list
i.e. a Continental list member.
3) a continent 'moderator'.
Ditto upwards to WDDM.
If it really took off County/Regional lists could be added on the same
principle i.e. WDDM (UK-Kent)

4. Discussion.
1) Any 'debate' would be only be done at the lowest level due to the
impracticalities of 1000's trying to contribute.
2) The largest list I am on has nearly 6000 members and has very strict
rules i.e. any one can contribute their perspective, but no one is allowed
to contradict someone else's contribution because other list members
are taken <quote> 'to be old and ugly enough to make their own mind up'<end
quote>, and it works extremely well.
The exception being, subjects being mixed on one list, hence, the reason I
developed Phoenix.

c) Web.
1. It should be a 'one stop' shop window for democracy under the banner of
WDDM and it's Mission Statement (Mirek has made a good start with that, it
will improve once the preliminary text is removed).
2. If the association principle is adopted, it could list the country groups
for aspiring democrats to join via their own countries website.


Regards

Bernard


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]