WDDM Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement : WddmRules

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

WDDM Rules

This was the start of the discussion on the WDDM rules, now the discussion was moved to ProposedRulesSummary. This page is now closed for editing.

Our Current Operating Rules (of April 16, 2005) read:
  1. Accepting new members:
    1. A new membership application is sent to all the current 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 more than 50% of the current members are against her/his membership.
    4. In all other cases the membership application will be put on hold until a consensus corresponding to either 2. or 3. is established through the e-mailing discussion in which the disputed candidate can participate.
  2. Similar approach will be used for all other agenda that may arise:
    1. A motion is immediately implemented if it gets more than 80% of votes.
    2. A motion is immediately rejected and cannot be again tabled for a certain period of time (to be determined; tentatively set to six months) if it gets less than 50% of votes.
    3. If a motion gets between 50% and 80% of votes, it can be further discussed until at least 80% of members are comfortable with its implementation. Only then it can be implemented.

Enter here your proposals/comments on the changes needed:

I am bringing over here the isues raised during the OCC:

1) Eric Lim sugested to review what is now Rule I-3.

2) I proposed to select a WDDM "organizing moderator": This proposal was moved to a separate page

3) I proposed that the "certain period of time" of Rule II-2 be six (6) months.

4) And I am adding a new item: What do we do with potential inactive members? How do we count their abstentions? If they do not register
objections (against new applicants), that's clear. But if e.g. 30% of members would consistently disregard voting, we would never be able
to achieve the 80% consensus level required for implementation of a proposal according to the above rules.

Mirek Kolar, April 16, 05

MiKolar: We should also have some Ethics guidelines on postings

Filia Den Hollander:
Proposes the possibility to accept new members with certain conditions attached if some objections against them are registered:
Would it be possible or even desirable to allow participation (only) if someone accepts certain conditions beforehand?

I would separate the issus on membership and decision making. Here are my proposals:

New members are accepted on demand except if there is argued opposition from any existent member. In that case, a vote takes place under the provisions for decision making. I would even suggest the establishment of some kind of online membership management sysem.

Decision making:
Decisions are made equally among all members. Thus, each member has a vote and each vote has an equal value. Members can choose to vote or not. 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. Only wwddm members can start forums and vote. However 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 members. In general a 2 week period could be broken down as follows:
Once a vote has been tallied the decision is sent to all members and posted on the wiki or other website. (This is not originally mine, but I have adapted it to what I believe to be our needs).


What kind of vote do you prefer: just simple majority, or my "consensus vote" (you have to persuade at lest 80% of members before a decision is emplemented)?

I prefer simple majority of actual votes, no quorum needed. If there are members that choose not to vote, that's their decission, but they shouldntt affect the validity of the vote, provided every vote goes through the processing as described above.

O.K., I know, only small part of members/citizens would usually be passionate on a particular question, only they would participate in discussion and vote on this matter.
But after this simple majority vote, all members/citizens should be made aware of result, and ask to accept the decision (BuildingConsensus). If not more than 20% of ALL members would object,
only then the decission will be implemented (be binding). In this approval process, if a member will not respond, it will be assumed, that he accept the decision, and will abide by it.

Poposals from EricLim

This was the start of the discussion on the WDDM rules, now the discussion was moved to ProposedRulesSummary. This page is now closed for editing.

CategoryProjects | CategoryInternal

Backlinks: Business, ProposedRulesSummary, ScHema
 Comments [Hide comments/form]
A moderator is important. I like the idea of a button connected to a random number generator for random selection. I also agree with the proposed Rule II-2 being six (6) monrhs. How long will a moderator session last?
Bruce Eggum
-- BrEggum (2005-04-16 03:28:53)
I think there is no problem about using simple majority even of a small percentage of members to make decisions, if the decisions have mostly to do with proposals or actions that will be made by the wwddm but carried out by the members in favor of the decision or elected representatives. In an organizations with voluntary membership, there is no way to force opinion or action into those members who don't agree.
-- JoLlOrtega (2005-04-22 16:17:52)