Re: [WDDM] Results/Next Steps: Toward a WDDM Charter

["M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>]

Hi Mark and all!
   First, a little comment: Al Smith of 'Smith - Wants out' is not a WDDM
member, he is the guy behind http://www.majorityvoice.com/ (and by the way
offered his software to us - I'll still have to follow this out, and evaluate
how to possibly incorporate it - will inform you in later ...).
   A am sorry that I have not got to responding officially to your request.
My response would be similar to the preliminary I sent you when you were
preparing the formulation for presentation to the whole WDDM:
   I think we should have a charter (or a mission statement, a defining
document) that all new members are asked to accept.
   I am still mostly for options A with these exceptions: 3A may be made
simpler and, and in item 4 I would stress much more "some language recognizing
groups within WDDM" of your 4B. Actually I would prefer some sort of 4C: to
have WDDM as a federation of groups. There would be a basic simple defining
document (charter) for the whole big group, and each subgroup within may have
their own additional more detailed rules or charters (bylaws), or no additional
rules at all, but all should be compliant with the main (basic simple) charter.
   Then for the main charter I would very simplify the initial wording of the
rest of the rules (5 and higher), or remove them at all, and have them slowly
formulated from the scratch by all the members who are willing to participate -
sentence by sentence - using e.g. the process I suggested in my previous post
of February 2 ("We can start with the character of WDDM ..."). It may seem to
be a slow process but I do not see any other way right now to do it right and
as close to the "bottom-up" approach as possible.
   Until we have other means we can do it using this e-mail list. A
"coordinator" or two will gather proposals and ask simple questions one at a
time, collect answers, summarize them, reformulate accordingly the wording of
an item under current discussion. Maybe we would not even need many formal
votes. When there would not be more comments or criticism on an particular
item, we may consider it approved/accepted, and move on to the next one.
   If those dozen members who responded to your post are willing to participate
for some more time, in a few months we may get something with which most people
would be comfortable.
   Until we establish a good way how to organize this deliberation, we have to
improvise. I think that at first we need structured deliberation more than
anything else. So far we mostly spoke unfocusedly on all kinds of subjects
simultaneously, and no conclusions were being made.
   I think that our deliberations should at first be focused towards an
approved (generally accepted) simple document defining what WDDM is (a mission,
charter) to put out on our home page, and to a method of rotation of the
coordinator(s) (http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/WddmModerator), and
have enough people who would be willing to serve as coordinators, and from
there everything could follow up naturally.
   I am glad that Mark has not abandoned his organizational effort, and hope
that he will continue to help to kick-start the above process.
   I'd like to remind to all new members (and refresh the memory of older ones)
about the results of our poll from the last year,
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/HowToProceedPoll that should also be
taken into account.
   And hope that more comments/suggestions on these basic questions will be
coming from all.

Mirek

.
Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> About a month ago (January 3 to be specific) I posted “Toward a WDDM
> Charter.” This was a series of questions which, if answered, allow for
> construction of a draft charter including procedures for discourse and
> adoption. The original posting is copied as an attachment.
>
> First of all I’d like to thank the respondents. Your serious review is
> reflected in your responses.
>
> There were a dozen responses. That’s not bad for a group of about 4
> dozen members. And it represents almost the entire cadre of members who
> ever speak out on the board. The following is a characterization of the
> answers:
>
> Positive
> Everingham - Supports a charter, supports options A, requests additional
> wording on dissent.
> Polak - Supports a charter, supports options A
> Jackson - Supports a charter, supports options A
> Eggum - Supports a charter, options 1C, 2B, 3B, 4A, 5B2, 6B, 7B
> Cardeiro - Supports a charter, options 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, 6A, 7A, 8A
> Antell - Supports a charter, supports options A
>
> Negative
> Becker - No need for a charter. Group can only function as a chat group
> VanHollander - No need for a charter. Group can only function as a chat
> group
> Rossin - No to the concept of a charter
>
> Other
> Ivanovna - Votes 'present'
> Clayson - ?
> Smith - Wants out
>
> Please get back to me if I’ve mischaracterized anyone’s response.
>
> It appears to me that there’s enough support to produce an actual draft
> for discussion, modification and adoption. I’ll do so by the end of the
> month.