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

00833: Re: Toward a WDDM Charter

From: "Bruce Eggum" <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:53:31 -0600
Subject: Re: Toward a WDDM Charter

Toward a WDDM Charter.

Response to Richard, Mark and group,

I am concerned your "hosting team" which has no "structure" under which to operate could be dictorial. The difference in a "hosting team" and a "board" is that the Board would have limited power, be required to have a referendum on SOME matters, and the membership could use I&R to make "corrections".

The original reason for a "board" was because not enough people were active, even in voting. Thus no business could be carried out, not even to develop structure for basic operation of the website. It takes MONEY to operate this type of organization, and as band width needs increase, so do costs. All this requires accountability, which is structure. The Board is intended to develop (write) structure for itself as well as WDDM, and once completed would be brought before the whole organization in referendum for approval. Thus would become a WDDM Charter, (constitution)

Constitutional government, with "representatives" needing to follow it is perhaps the only way to protect against the "ruling of the majority". The ruling of the majority would put all minority groups at risk. That is how Bush took over the USA. He scared the majority into agreeing with his insane Republican plan. The USA Bills of Rights, the structure of the Constitution were disregarded, and the Congress, (republicrats majority) went along. Had the US Constitution been followed, Bush  could  not simply do as he pleased.

If a majority of the people had been astute and read the REAL news, they could have stopped it with I&R. (another reason we need many "peoples" websites is to high lite the REAL news. Many individual sites are now doing that. We need to encourage all these developments and recognize (link) the ones which are bipartisan and real.

All the Best, Bruce


On 12/4/06, Richard Moore wrote:

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
http://cyberjournal.org


--
Bruce Eggum, Gresham Wisconsin, USA
Free Movie on Gov http://www.truemajorityaction.org/takeback/
www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
www.doinggovernment.blogspot.com/
[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]