[WDDM] Re: Toward a WDDM Charter

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

At 9:53 -0600 4-12-2006, Bruce Eggum wrote:
> 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

(snip)


Richard, and all

I agree with your statement below:

quote:
============>>  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."
=============endquote


Actually, Democracy does heavily suffer from the countless and
somehow obsessive attempts of corporate bureaucratism wanting
to set up their leadership as the chartered structure of democracy.

antonio


> On 12/4/06, Richard Moore <<rkm(at)quaylargo.com>rkm(at)quaylargo.com> 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/>
> <http://www.doinggovernment.com/>
> Check out my Blog too: 
> <http://www.doinggovernment.blogspot.com/>