WDDM Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement : ProposedRulesSummary

WddmWikiMain :: News : Members : Topics : Links : Recent : All : Grouped : Login

Synthesis of all proposed changes to WDDM Current Operating Rules (COR)

Last edited by WebMaster
It is a synthesis of all the proposals made so far (by April 22) on the following pages: WddmRules and EricLimCORproposal.
This is our current working copy of the proposed COR. To be further refined:

Membership Rules:

There shall be two categories of members: Ordinary Members and Associate Members.
  1. Only the Ordinary Members shall have the powers to amend the Current Operating Rules or the Constitution of the WDDM.
  2. All motions, resolutions or decisions made by the Ordinary Members only shall have primacy over those made by Associate Members or by Associate and Ordinary members.
(Transition: When and if this is adopted, all current WDDM Members will become Ordinary Members, except perhaps for those who have not participated with a single word since the beginning?)
(Attach a comment on why to have two types of members along the lines from EricLimCORproposal.)

Accepting new members:
  1. A new membership application is sent to all the current Ordinary Members for review.
  2. An applicant will be immediately accepted if not more than 20% of the current members will have any objections to her/his membership.
  3. An applicant will be immediately rejected if 80% or more of the current members are against her/his membership
    (I think we should still be able not to accept for example somebody who is clearly hostile to DD)
  4. An applicant shall become the Associate Member in all other cases (if not accepted under 2, or refected under 3).
  5. After six months of membership, an Associate Member can apply for a review of his application to become an Ordinary Member.

Decision Making Rules:

  1. Decisions are made collectivelly by all Ordinary Members. Each Ordinary Member has a single vote and each vote has an equal value. Members can choose to vote or not.
  2. A proposal (motion) is processed as described in Proposal Submission and Processing section below.
  3. When a motion comes to a vote (as recommended/required by the Research Report conclusions), the following rules apply:
    1. A motion is immediately rejected and cannot be again tabled for six months if it gets less than 50% of votes of ALL THOSE WHO VOTED.
    2. If a motion wins a simple majority of those who voted on it, the result is posted on the site, and ALL ORDINARY WDDM MEMBERS are invited to accept it as a binding decission.
    3. If not more than 20% of all ordinary members would object against it within 6 days (or 14 days???), the decision will be considered accepted and binding, and be implemented. In this approval process, if a member will not respond, it will be assumed, that he accepts the decision, and will abide by it.
    4. If more than 20% of all members present any objections within 6 (or 14) days, the motion is not implemented unless a 80% consensus of all members is achieved through further discussions, modifications or whatever process will be appropriate.

Proposal Submission and Processing:
A proposal/problem must be presented by a minimum of 2 members and sent to a Research Writer who then posts the proposal on the Wiki and starts a discussion forum. Each member is notified when a new forum is begun though the email list. Any (Ordinary or Associate WDDM members can submit proposals, but only Ordinary Members can vote on them.

The general public can watch and participate in the discussion. During this discussion period, members can give their opinions and facts to be included in the possible options. The findings are compiled and presented by the Research Writer in the form of a Research Report, a summary of the actions and/or inaction to be voted upon by Ordinary Members.

In general a 2 week period will be alloted to the proposal processing, and could be broken down as follows:

(Except for the vote period, the first two period should be made flexible, and extended as necessary, according to the importance of the proposal, and the time commitments of the Research Writer. Generally the discussion period should end only when there are no more contribution/ammendmens.)

Further Discussion possible also here
 How to proceed? 
 I suggest that we first put to approval/vote to all members individual important concepts before writing detailed rules around them. These are:
  1. Only one category of members OR two categories (Ordinary and Associate)
  2. Simple majority vote OR slower consensual approach
Another thing: is there a pressing need to have some rules changed or put in place to be able to function more efficiently? Then we should concentrate on that.  
   2005-04-25 18:46:05 by WddmAdminComments (0)

 Wikipedia on consensus 
 Interestingly enough, Wikipedia people also arrived at the need to have the 66% to 80% consensus.
Read the second paragraph here:
   2005-04-25 15:25:28 by WddmAdminComments (0)

 Read Page Comments  
 There is already an active discussion goin on in the Comments. Do we need this additional blog on this page?
Perhaps it is time again to summarize the discussion. Although this time it seems that there is no clear agreement achieved yet, what a new "synthesis" would be.
I personally still think that a simple majority vote is not enough. Some sort of encouragement towards the consensus should be added, even if that slows down accepting some proposals. We can initially lower the 80% requirement?
As for the number of members: not very important right now whether we have 20 and 1000 members. More improtant is to build an organization that will be respected, and taken note of. 
   2005-04-25 14:34:38 by WddmAdminComments (0)
You need to be registered and logged-in to contribute to the blogs.

There are separate discussions on:
Organizing Moderator
Ethics guidelines on postings

CategoryProjects | CategoryInternal

Backlinks: AdjournedHistoricalTopics, Business, ScHema, WddmRules

There are 13 comments on this page. [Display comments]