Re: [WDDM] Re: WDDM Membership Requirement

[<WDDM webmaster>]

Bruce,
   voting system is very simple for now. The same as we had for the poll a year
ago. All responses should be sent to this WDDM list, people write their
response in whatever form they wish, and anybody can tabulate and verify the
results for themselves. All the posts to this lists are archived. If people
failed to save them on their home computer, they can be retrieved any time
later, and rechecked, see instructions on how to do it at
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/maillisthelp.html
The subjects of all old posts up to Jan 31, 2007 (973 posts) are listed here:
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/InternalMatters
Since then we had about 40 new posts (I expect this one to get a number around
1015).
   We can automate voting later as I have suggested in the past weeks. For
example, our member http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/echarp has such
similar system.

   The present wording of the mission statement has been posted there for over
a year now, I asked for comments about it before, there were no objections so
far, neither you have objected to it before ....

   Anybody can subscribe to OPEN_WDDM without any approval, subscription to
this other list is independent of the WDDM membership. So such subscribers can
be considered WDDM e-mail members if you wish. Read the last sentence at:
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/join.php
   I remind that we had been discussing those complicated schemes with waiting
periods for permanent member admission at length before. In the end the
conclusion seemed to be to do it as we do it now. I remind that if we introduce
complicated member admission procedures, somebody will have to implement them.


Re:
> WDDM is not a government, it
> cannot be a DD example.
WDDM can be anything that we collectively decide it to be. We are a group, a
community, so if we use DD internally, we will become a DD example.
Because we want to promote DD, I suggest that we use DD principles internally,
and become a DD example, otherwise we can hardly have any credibility.
So I would say we MUST be a DD example in the first place, and only then we can
add on more functions/goals - just my personal suggestion and conviction at
this moment.

I hope you will send in soon some more voices/votes on the subject on the
Mission (are you for/against the present wording of the Mission?),
and on the member admission, so we can finally close this item.

Mirek


Bruce Eggum wrote:

> Dear all,
> There have been "discussions" but not necessarily "decisions". Indeed,
> we had no established way to "vote". Mirek, Thank you for setting up a
> voting process. Please submit the process of voting in writing so any
> person who accepted the "election" position would know how to do it.
> Where votes are sent and how to access them etc.
>
> The present "Mission Statement" appeared, but I did not discuss it
> because there were other matters, like who was a member.
>
> I think this statement would piss off a lot of business people,
> entrepreneurs, and others.
>
> "EVERYWHERE, the people of planet Earth are angry, frustrated, and
> disappointed with their political systems, for dictators are still
> tyrants, and so-called democracies are undeniably and clearly
> undemocratic. Politics still favors the powerful, and political parties
> are not only filled with incompetent opportunists, but in this highly
> technological world they are obsolete."
>
> Bruce: We are trying to establish DD with government. To call these
> people we are trying to establish communication with: "forked-tongued
> politicians, greedy, uncaring businessmen," really screws that up.
>
> On WDDM Website:  Earth, people are weary of forked-tongued politicians,
> greedy, uncaring businessmen, and the continuous wars they initiate.
> Everywhere, people seek new ways to govern their societies; ways that
> would be more honest and just, promising a better and safer future for
> themselves and their children. They seek — and they are finding — new
> ways that do promise a better and safer future. Among these pioneers,
> the overwhelming consensus is that, of all these new ways,
> "Participatory" Democracy, also known as "Direct" Democracy, is the most
> promising path to that better future.
>
> So, we best establish an AIM of what we are doing here.
> I completely oppose the present "mission statement".
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 2/26/07, M. Kolar wrote:
>
>     Dear all!
>
>     I remind you that I wrote on Feb. 2:
>      > Here we could at first at least try to finalize some basic things
>     that are
>      > long overdue, that determine how WDDM is viewed from the outside
>     world, one
>      > issue at a time (for example, one simple question each week or
>     two - would
>      > that be a reasonable time scale?).
>      >
>      > We can start with the character of the WDDM (I do not mean now
>     whether it
>      > should be an organization or association or whatever; let's
>     accept for now
>      > that it is just a group of supposedly DD advocates without any fixed
>      > structure). The question is: should we be a model of society at
>     large (a
>      > future DD society), and accept as members anybody who has some
>     interest in
>      > how the society is organized and governs itself, or should we be
>     a group of
>      > people who share a rather well defined set of ideas about what
>     democracy is,
>      > and concentrate on promoting this vision.
>
>
> WDDM  has no right  to  tell anyone what to do. WDDM is to provide
> information,  advocacy for  ALL DD methods. WDDM is not a government, it
> cannot be a DD example. WDDM can put this information on the website and
> links for people to refer to. WDDM can provide communication methods,
> where people can ask questions etc. but WDDM cannot be responsible for
> an individuals views nor endorses them.
>
>      >
>      > So for the next while I'll be excepting here only contributions
>     concerning
>      > this questions probably until we reach a reasonable consensus.
>
>     Then later I asked specifically about new member requirements.
>     The only response to this request was this one:
>
>     Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net wrote:
>      > Mirek,
>      > Thanks for the reminder on the issue of minimum membership
>      > requirements.  I agree that we should enforce the presently posted
>      > requirement that new members must affirm postive interest in DD
>     (or at
>      > least democracy improvement).    Mark Antell
>      > ------------------
>
>     I agree with Mark.
>
>     Can we now close this matter?
>
>
> Bruce- NO
> We have people joining "automatically" with no review at all.
> I suggest that people could "join" our OPEN email list, and than they
> would be "email members" which is what the majority of Move On members are.
...............