: ProposedRulesSummary

I think a proposal may be made, and could remain a proposal. The originator(s) would decide when to bring the proposal forward or it could be brought forward by request of the ordinary members.

What is, who will be, a research writer? What is the job description?

If the time periods are to short, people will not have opportunity to participate. I like the flexible approach and at least 14 days for voting.

With Wiki, the site and information can be assessed on any computer, so this will make it more possible that people can participate even on holiday.

Bruce Eggum BrEggum

For clarification purposes:

I suggest that Clause 2 under 'Accepting new members' be amended as follows:

"An applicant shall be immediately accepted as Ordinary Member, if not more than 20% of the current members have any objections to her/his membership"

There is a typo error in 3:
..... or rejected (not refected) under 3)

===Decision Making Rules:===

One fundamental question here is the role the Associate Members are empowered to play in WDDM. The proposed Rule I gives Ordinary and Associate Members similar powers except for 2 areas:

a Amendment to COR or Constitution
This is to prevent a surprise takeover of WDDM by a sudden influx of new members or the hijacking of WDDM by them for their own purposes.

b Primacy of Decisions by Ordinary Members
This empowers the Ordinary Members to amend or repeal decisions made by WDDM as the result of domination by Associate Members. The intention of this empowerment of the Ordinary Members is to give the Associate Members as wide a role as possible in the WDDM.

----------

The proposal for consensus a stated above means that, except in the case of an overwhelming favourable vote, decisions have to be reconsidered until they get... an overwhelming favourable vote (80%)! This contradicts the simple majority rule and makes it useless. I still like the idea of consensus building, but I don't believe this is the right solution. I propose thus some brainstorming.

In this spirit, I like the distinction between consensus and consent of the sociocratic centers (although I am not thoroughly familiar with it). The "principle of consent" means that a decision has been taken only when none of the members who have votes have any argued and paramount objection against one decision (definition adapted). The consent principle differs from "consensus" and "veto". With consensus, the participants in decision making are "for" a decision. In consent decision making a "not against" is required. With a veto, arguments are not necessarily given. In consent decision making, an argument must always be given, as well as an indication as to whether the objection is paramount or not. Thus, perhaps every vote could include a vote on the actual support for the proposal and another one on consent (something along the lines

==Rationale for the Proposed changes to COR==

If we see absolutely no possibility for WDDM to grow meaningfully beyond its present 20 members with a collective assets of about Cdn$350, then it is a waste of time to discuss changes to the COR. We might as well let it remain as a social gathering of 20 independent individuals with each doing what pleases him or her most, gaining no DD organisational experience to share with others in other parts of the world. In such an eventuality, WDDM (Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement) is a misnomer. There is nothing worldwide about it. It is nothing more than a pretentious gathering of 20 people in cyberspace.

On the other hand, if WDDM is going to be a worldwide DD movement, then it is serious business. Let every member do what he or she could to enable it to develop eventually into truly global movement where hundreds or even thousands of democracy promoters all over the world could rally to advance true democracy globally.

If we have this vision, then our COR must evolve to meet WDDM growing needs always with some room for future expansion. So it is time we should consider changes for the COR beyond the bare Initial Rules which were designed to facilitate the rebirth of WDDM. We now have to work on a COR that could cater to the needs of a few hundred members so that we could invite suitable individuals to join us.

Obviously if WDDM is going to be a worldwide movement of hundreds or even thousands of members, giving any 2 members veto powers to the admission of new members would have a high probability of being self-defeating. WDDM membership should be open to as many people as possible, if it wants to be a worldwide movement. That is why it requires 80% or more of the current members to reject a membership application (See proposed Clause 3, under Accepting new members).

Yes, we may fail in our mission of making WDDM a worldwide movement, but at least we know we have tried our best.

By the way, the reasons for having 2 categories of membership can be found at: http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/EricLimCORproposal∞

==Rules III-3 and 4==

For ordinary business, 6 days for voting may be sufficient, whereas for amendment to COR or the Constitution, 14 days are better because such an amendment is special business and may affect the structure, organization or mission of WDDM. The longer period is to ensure that all interested members would have sufficient time to vote on the amendment.

==Proposal Submission and Processing==

Instead of having a proposal/problem presented by a minimum of 2 members, let the proposal/problem be posted at the WDDM email list by the member concerned.

If it were seconded by another member within 7 days, then the proposer shall send it to the Research Writer for organizing the discussion forum. Otherwise, it shall lapse.

This would facilitate the proposal submission.

Still, I don't agree with two types of membership. I would like to know other members's opinion, but I this would have to be decided by vote.

I too am concerned about two types membership. Isn't this creating what we are trying to disolve? People being ruled by a "legislature" of special people "picked" to run things? "Security" can be written into the structure so that the org cannot be "taken over". Bruce

This is rather negative: "If we see absolutely no possibility for WDDM to grow meaningfully beyond its present 20 members with a collective assets of about Cdn$350, then it is a waste of time to discuss changes to the COR. We might as well let it remain as a social gathering of 20 independent individuals with each doing what pleases him or her most, gaining no DD organisational experience to share with others in other parts of the world."

We are beginning! How ever many people we are, that is us. As we develop and if we do so in a good way there is great possibility we will increase in numbers. These new members are like a vote for out org.

Our structure is a living thing and will change and adopt as it grows. We simply need to make the beginning. Bruce,

==Understanding the Proposed COR better==

You are right, Bruce. Paragraph 1 of my previous comments is very negative. That is why it begins with an

If we will have Associate members, note that I added into the initial synthesis to the "Transition note" about transition from the current membership to future dual membership the following: " except perhaps for those who have not participated with a single word since the beginning?"

Dear Eric and all,
Eric appears to see the need to re-write what is, based on what was. I would like to first discuss what WDDM Wika members want, than develop it. All new if that is best.

I think we need to first determine if we want two types of members, and if so: (1) what purpose will it provide? (2) how can division be accomplished without creating a "ruling" class and a "ruled" class? (or does someone want to rule?) 3. Could WDDM Wiki write membership rules, such as need to advocate DD, need to follow ethic rules of conversation and posting, no commercial venture using WDDM Wiki, etc? Than a member could be "disciplined or their membership revoked as a penalty. This may be needed anyway. Than no there would be no need for two memberships.
Bruce Eggum

There are at least 2 ways of discussing what WDDM members want. One way as apparently suggested by Bruce is to discuss everything first and then decide on a comprehensive agreement on all the issues under discussion and, perhaps even agree on a complete Constitution.

The other way is to try to build progressively on the successful COR like the discussion here.

The former would require a lot of time and effort before any decision could be made, provided the discussion survives the many controversial issues and the difficulties of dealing with so many issues at one time.

The latter allows us to pick on the most important and urgent issues first like basic membership and decision-making rules. After we have successfully dealt with such rules, we could then proceed to the next matter in order of urgency and need.

The current proposal for Ordinary and Associate Membership does not create a

Dear Eric, 4/26/2005
I comment on your comments

There are at least 2 ways of discussing what WDDM members want. One way as apparently suggested by Bruce is to discuss everything first and then decide on a comprehensive agreement on all the issues under discussion and, perhaps even agree on a complete Constitution.

<Bruce> No Eric, instead of you apparently deciding what I think, it would be better of you to ask me. This is a manipulative method of yours and I detest it terribly! If you read WDDM Wiki you will see my posts and others as we develop ideas into initiatives which would than be written from everyone's consideration. >

<E> The other way is to try to build progressively on the successful COR like the discussion here.
<Bruce: Please, the "successful COR" you are following is based on the failed wddm. Been there done that. The membership thing was part of the controversy>

<E> The former would require a lot of time and effort before any decision could be made, provided the discussion survives the many controversial issues and the difficulties of dealing with so many issues at one time.

The latter allows us to pick on the most important and urgent issues first like basic membership and decision-making rules. After we have successfully dealt with such rules, we could then proceed to the next matter in order of urgency and need.

<Bruce> Yes, and we are doing that Eric. We are deciding the direction of WDDM Wiki. We are having discussion about your proposal. You do not allow input on "your" proposal, or you would hear us. Please Please do not repeat the dam thing again, it is coming out my ears! I am not the imbecile you keep telling everyone "Bruce does not understand. " I understand but DISAGREE with you! Here you repeat it AGAIN! ---

<E> The current proposal for Ordinary and Associate Membership does not create a “ruling class” and a “ruled class”. The reasons are as follows:

1 Very few people would want to be ruled by others, especially DD activists. Since there is few or no taker, such a “ruled” class could hardly exist. People would simply decline the offer to be Associate Members. So Bruce needs not worry about a “ruled” class within WDDM.

2 Bruce has overlooked that the Associate Members as proposed are “equal in all respects to all other members” except for the conditions laid down in the proposed Rule I relating to the amendments of the COR or the Constitution, the primacy of the decisions of the Ordinary Members and the review of membership applications under proposed Rule II. This means that apart from the stated conditions, Associate Members are no different from Ordinary Members having the same rights and a vote of equal value. Under such conditions, they are not a “ruled” class.

<Bruce: No Eric I did NOT overlook! "Apart from stated conditions." What a nice way to say it. Perhaps we could make a stated condition that Eric is subservient to Bruce, apart from that they are equal".

<E> 3 The Ordinary and Associate Memberships as proposed does not create two distinct and separate classes as implied by Bruce. They are, in fact, two stages of the same membership. Associate members exist simply because 20% or more of the current members object to their application to be members and instead of leaving their application in limbo or having them rejected, they are given the opportunity to participate in the activities of WDDM like all other members subject to the stated conditions. After six months, they could apply to be Ordinary Members. They are not barred permanently from Ordinary Membership. They are under probation. They take two steps instead of one to Ordinary Membership. They are not permanently under the rule of Ordinary Members.

4 What is so offensive to DD to allow these people the opportunity to approve themselves worthy of Ordinary Membership of WDDM, if they are willing to do so?

<Bruce: What makes them worthy or unworthy?

<E> Why do we deny ourselves the opportunity to review their application for Ordinary Membership six months later when we would have known them better and when we could have make a better and more informed decision on their membership application? This is what would happen, if there were no Associate Membership as proposed.
-- EricLim (2005-04-26 15:13:55)

<Bruce> Now I understand you want them on probation. But even than, what if they misbehave seven months later? Please Eric, if you had discussed this matter a bit before you go off writing, you would have a better idea of what should be written.

What ever is the reason WDDM Wiki needs to have such a strict entrance exam? Is WDDM Wiki going to subcontract to the KGB or the CIA? Are we afraid of the people?

I suggest IF WDDM Wiki thinks it is necessary to review applications so closely, than make all applicants (equality) on probation for six months. However, with policy which allows the expulsion of members for bad behavior, it seems unnecessary to have such a critical entrance exam.

Regards. Bruce

When I said: