Re: [WDDM] ATD 200705-04 - Shaking False Democracy to the Core #01

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

Dear PVR and all:
  It seems that there is still a lot of confusion floating around.
  We are all equal here, and we were absolutely equal when we had no
structure at all and was setting up the present Charter. What you
apparently refer to as "privileged status" somebody else considers
"complete transparency" of the proceedings of the Executive Board.
  Executive Board will become only what we will allow it to do. I see it
only as a group of moderators of our deliberations.  We have the full
power to change the things as we want if everybody will be more active.
I am trying to get precedural rules completely clarified, see the posts
in these threads:
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?24,446,446#msg-446
   The "Proposal" forum has been moved to the top level of the WDDM
Forum, it is now called "Proposals and Initiatives" (this all is
tentative). But everybody can start placing there their proposals right
away, to be processed according to the Charter. You can propose there to
abolish the board, or change it however you want.

  See more in between your text below:

Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:

> Dear Mirek,
> I think I understand what Eric's point of view (well brought out in
> the para you have quoted from Eric's mail). I would like to dwell on
> it since it has important bearing on how democracy and by inference on
> how WDDM functions.
>
> Starting with WDDM itself I think many of the members are not in
> favour of having a executive board. Neither do I think that they
> approve the charter and its wordings. Yet the charter has been passed
> by 'democratic' method and everyone is expected to go along with this
> 'democratic' decision. This kind of 'democracy' may explain why there
> is poor participation of members.
To this I may only point again to my previous answer cited below. Why
did not the alleged majority of members kill the whole setting of the
Board when it was being discussed be months (it was before you joined
WDDM). There were no obstacles for them to do it in any way they wished.
On which ground should silence be considered disapproval rather than
tacit approval, especially if we had no way to say whether these members
are still with us if they do not respond at all to multiple reminders?

I was personally not advocating the need for a Board at all (I thought
that we can have an automated software procedure, a proposal queue ...),
but in a democracy you must be willing to make some compromises, and not
to become obstructive if you do not get yoru way 100% as you wanted.
Otherwise it would never work.
I think that at this stage it is important that we are starting to have
more or less any procedural rules that work. We seems to have them, and
it is better to continue working within these rules (that permit us to
change them as we wish) that to trow away averything and start  again to
quarrel from zero.

Mirek

> Again, when the formation of the executive board is itself not to
> their liking, members are asked to vote on whether there should be
> separate discussion board for executive members where the rest of the
> members are allowed only to 'watch' but cannot take part in the
> discussions. This is the way the present day 'democracy' functions -
> world-wide.
>
> If we are aiming at true democracy then it is a must that at the WDDM
> level every member should be a equal and should have equal say in its
> proceedings, if he chooses to. Only then can we hope to usher in true
> democracy.
>
> Thus voting 'no' or 'abstain' would carry meaning only where all are
> equals. A group of people cannot claim 'privileged status' and  still
> claim to be democratic just by following 'democratic' means of taking
> decisions.
>
> PVR
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 MKolar wrote :
> > Eric, but what prevents you to vote NO if you are nor comfortable
> with the wording of an issue? This will make your vote to be counted,
> and may  help to force the issue revisited if enough people vote the
> same way as you.
> > I am only proposing to abstain (and thus leave the decision to
> others) if you have no problem with the wording of an issue/proposal,
> have no opinion on the issue, and can live with either result of this
> voting. What is wrong with that?
> > Mirek
> > ...
> >
> > > Do note that, on these wordings, even those who participate in the
> discussion, but who could not, in good conscience, vote because of the
> wordings of the issues are disenfranchised. Although this procedure is
> widely used by false democracy, it is particularly bad for any
> organisation or community that aspires to be a true democracy. This is
> a mechanism that enables a small minority who are in control of the
> voting processes to go through the motion of open and public
> discussion and then put up all the vote choices that could have
> consequences not acceptable to some or even many of the participants
> in the discussion. Only the votes of those who vote are counted.