1. Organizational Goals. We'd
like to make a better world. One in which all adults have
equality under law, plus the four basic freedoms: freedom of speech,
freedom of religion (or more broadly, freedom of conscience), freedom
from want, and freedom from fear.
Disagree: This is an attempt to impose priorities on people from
'on high'. In addition it invites unnecessary divisiveness over the
choice of priorities. Furthermore, it encourages the existence of a
centralized government in order to enforce the priorities.
1C. WDDM is dedicated to the study and education of
direct democracy. This option should allow tax-advantaged
contribution (under US law) to WDDM as an educational non-profit
institution.
Agree: Democracy itself (without specific social / economic
programs) should be our focus, and WDDM doesn't need to take an
official, active part in initiatives that threaten tax status. Its
participants can do that wearing a different hat.
2. Organizational Methods - commitment to direct
democracy
2A.WDDM will be an exemplar for direct democracy. As
much as possible, decision making power will flow from direct vote of
the membership.
OR
2B. WDDM will strive to implement direct democracy in its
own operations. However, in the initial organizational phase
WDDM will assign considerable responsibility to an executive
committee.
Disagree: WDDM is an educational discussion forum, provided to
all participants by a hosting team. The hosting team is a
self-selected group who have taken the initiative to work together and
facilitate the forum. (thanks! :-) ) I support the team in working
together in whatever way suits them. If they are doing a good job,
they will listen to participant feedback and they will improve the
quality of the forum over time. My role, as a participant, is to (a)
provide feedback to the hosts, (b) participate in the discussion if it
is useful, (c) find another forum if the discussion is not
useful.
3. Organizational Methods - encouraging
discourse
3A. WDDM shall continue to maintain a BBS or WIKI to which
all members may post proposals or opinions. Many electronic BBS
systems are afflicted with the same problem: they provide high
visibility to the fastest and most aggressive multiple posters.
The executive board shall, early on, propose methods to calm this
problem, probably by making it easy for each BBS user to locate input
from voices that they value*.
OR
3B. WDDM shall continue to maintain a BBS or WIKI to which
all members may post proposals or opinions.
This is a tricky area. It is very difficult to maintain openness
and quality at the same time. It seems to me that experimentation will
be needed, an ongoing evolution of process.
As per my previous comments, I don't like the term 'executive
board'. I see it as a 'hosting team'. Certainly it is a good idea for
them to send out ideas, and get feedback from participants. But in the
end I support the team in using their own best judgement about how to
improve the forum. The value of the forum is not measured by how happy
the current participants are, but rather by the long term growth in
the quality of discussion.
One of the big 'divides' in our dialog about democracy has to do
with voting. I would be in favor of another email list, that is
devoted to discussion only of direct democracy, based on the
assumption that voting is unhelpful. On that list, postings in favor
of voting can be moderated out. On the existing list, we can continue
to debate voting methods, and the value of voting.
4. Membership
4A. Membership is limited to those who agree that
governance would be improved by expansion and facilitation of direct
democracy, deliberation and consensus. Active members must also
commit to review proposals and vote on motions posted on the WDDM
website.
OR
4B. As above plus some language recognizing groups within
WDDM.
Disagree: I think this approach is unnecessary, unworkable, and a
drain of forum energy, as per previous comments. Similarly, I would
dispense with all the proposed Business Rules.
---------------------
* (From Item 3A above)
Possible suggestions for regulating aggressive multiple
postings include:
i) The BBS or
WIKI shall support tools allowing each reader to select voices that
they wish to consult first.
ii) The BBS or
WIKI shall provide a default, high priority location for executive
board review and recommendation on each proposal.
iii) The WIKI
shall automatically order postings, based perhaps on a 'poster
score' calculated from the average number of readers per
posting.
If the hosting team is willing to devote time and attention to
'pruning and tuning' the Wiki/BBS space, that is a great service to
all of us, for which we should be grateful. Again, experimental
evolution is called for.
I'd be in favor of the hosting team structuring the space somehow
around concepts and issues. There could be perhaps two categories of
entries: those considered 'useful' by the team and 'others', which are
either 'less useful' or 'not yet reviewed'. The 'useful' ones could be
always 'opened up' for viewing, while the 'others' could be
represented by a name & subject line, and could be viewed by
clicking on that line. This would allow contributors to post whatever
they want, while making it convenient for readers to ignore the
'others' if they so choose. The team can delete any postings (at
review time) that are clearly off topic or offensive.
best regards,
richard