First proposals

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

Hello again!
   This time I am writing more as an ordinary member candidate than as the
webmaster, although it's not easy to separate these two roles for me right now.

   As can be seen from the initial rules, I am proposing to start (and if it
were only up to me, to continue running it for all time) this new WDDM as a
self-organizing web community (or association). We could try various ways to
govern ourselves collectively - to become a kind of DD "laboratory".
   Do you like this idea?

   Just to remind you. We have 16 applicants. The application of the initial
rules means:
   Rule 3:  "not more than 20% of others"  = not more than 3
   Rule 4:  "more than 50% of others" = 8 and more
   Rule 6-I: "more than 80% of votes" = 13 and more
   Rule 6-II: "less than 50% of votes" = less than 8

Further clarification on my previous suggestion:
> More urgent may be to select a WDDM "organizing moderator" (or whatever you
> want to call this position) to preside over the online discussions and
> processing of proposals. I would prefer to stay

I propose that all the members serve in this position on a rotating basis.
Either cyclically, e.g., in the order in the initial application list, or
selected randomly (with an added condition that the same person would not serve
two consecutive terms) - I could for example put into the Internal Members Area
a button connected to a random number generator; the outgoing "organizing
moderator" would click on this button at the end of his/her term, upon which
the program would randomly select another member and send him/her an e-mail
announcing that he/she is the next "organizing moderator".

"Organizing moderator" would simply collect the proposals from members, arrange
them in the order of their importance or urgency (here there could be some
space for personal biases, that's why I see it important, that all the members
alternate in this position), and put them to deliberation/vote to the members
one by one in that order. At the end of their term, they would pass the
unfinished "moderating" business onto the next selected member.

At present, I am apparently assuming this position by default. My first act
(1.) was to send out the initial member applications for your
approval/rejection/comments.
When you are done with this first important item, you can start think about the
next few proposals in the following order:

2. I propose that the "certain period of time" of Rule 6-II be six (6) months.
Please send your votes/comments/counterproposals (they'll be dealt with
according to Rules 6-I, 6-II, 6-III until these rules are replaced by something
else using this very process than I am just starting here).

When this is decided, we can go on to:

3. Deliberation/vote on the above position of "Organizing moderator". Do we
need one? How should the position be better named (not very important now)? How
will the selection be done? For what term?
We can start with the initial vote on the following (to sound the opinion of
the members, to see whether we can get one of the results 6-I or 6-II on the
first try):
   i. Vote for two possibilities: all members will rotate exactly cyclically,
or the members will be selected in a random order, for example as suggested above.
   ii. The term for this position will be one month. Vote: Yes/No/other
proposals for the length of the "Organizing moderator" term.

I think these 3 items are enough for the start. When they are decided,
we can start the deliberation on various proposals for the more elaborate WDDM
structure (than my simple initial rules) received with the membership
applications, if nothing else more important emerges in the meantime.

Mirek