Dear all,
I’ll gladly step up on the executive
board for this year!
Regarding WDDM “internal initiatives”,
motions, etc. why would we not use the Enitiatives system, e.g. http://wddm.enitiatives.org/ (this url still
points to the Swiss web site, but can be changed soon into a WDDM only web
site).
The concept is like in a (still inexistent)
real electronically-ruled DD country, like Switzerland:
-
all WDDM
members can create Enitiatives (basically, launch an idea or an “initiative”)
-
other
members can discuss it, modify it, and vote for or against it
-
when a
given number of people have voted (could be e.g. 10% of all WDDM members), if
the average is positive, a working group summarizes the discussion into a
motion, submits it to WDDM members for approval (just to check that the motion
really reflects the discussion)
-
WDDM
members vote to approve or reject the motion
I agree with Bruce: the Executive board should
take decisions and apply them without having to ask members every time (except of
course to modify the charter, etc.), but members would have a referendum right –
this could also be done on Enitiatives, but with less votes necessary.
The advantage is that there could be a
discussion BEFORE a lengthy vote is organized.
Another advantage is that everything would
happen online. Any one could subscribe to the “threads” =
Enitiatives that are of interest to him/her (to get email alerts). A “memory”
would be kept. Discussions would be ordered by “thread”, instead of
being mixed up in mailboxes.
What do you think?
Nico
P.S: in case anyone is wondering, I
created www.Enitiatives.org – I
would adapt it and put it at the disposal of WDDM – evidently free of
charge.
From: Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net
[citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net]
Sent: jeudi, 31. mai 2007 20:32
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: [WDDM] Several WDDM
business items
Hi All,
I’d like to discuss the following three points concerning WDDM business.
#1. Moving from discussion to decision
- with specific reference to PVR’s thoughts about ‘partyless or
truer democracy.’
#2. Richard Moore’s resignation
from the executive board.
#3. Executive board communications.
These points are discussed below.
#1. Moving from discussion to decision
PVR’s most recent note of 5/28 (attached below) defines a specific
program:
“The first step, I think, should be to come to a conclusion that we
cannot do away with representative democracy at least for the time being. We
need to redefine Direct Democracy as Democracy where people have direct say in
matters of governance through their representatives without the intermediary of
political parties within the elected house”
If PVR, or anyone else, has a firm recommendation on goals for WDDM, we do have
a charter which specifies how programs and issues may be brought to
decision. That charter is published at the following address:
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/charter.html
The following steps are specified by the WDDM charter:
A. A member posts a proposal for discussion. Perhaps s/he modifies the
proposal based on that discussion.
B. A member posts a proposal and requests that it be seconded by other
members. For the current year, the charter sets the number of seconds
required at three.
C. The initiator or ‘owner’ of a properly seconded motion tells
WDDM to post the motion for decision (adoption/rejection) by the
membership. Business motions require a simple majority of votes for
adoption. A charter amendment however, requires approval by 2/3 of the
voters.
#2. Richard Moore’s resignation.
Disappointing. I just haven't seen anything deeply troublesome in the
recent WDDM discussions either at a personal or political level.
Given that the election occurred only a few weeks ago, we should ask the fourth
certified candidate, Nicholas Durand, to fill the position vacated by Richard.
Nicholas, are you willing to take on this
responsibility?
#3. Executive Board Communications
Charter item 8 specifies that executive board communications shall be
open. Both George Kokkas and I have agreed to implement that requirement
by adding a forum for executive board communications. That forum is
write-enabled for all candidates for the board in the recent WDDM election, and
is read-enabled for all other members. Charter item 11 specifies that all
decisions of the executive board are subject to automatic referendum, but this
decision seems pretty obvious. If no one objects we will skip the
referendum on this. But if anyone
objects to this executive board decision we’ll take it to referendum vote
as called for in the charter.
Mark Antell, member
WDDM Executive Board