[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00176: Re(1): Proposed Amendments to COR

From: lpc1998 <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re(1): Proposed Amendments to COR

Thank you, Mirek, for your message.

Yes, let us begin our discussion on the proposals to amend the COR at the Wiki page.

Let this process of amending the COR mimic the legislative process. After all, we are making "laws" (rules) for the WDDM.

After a member has submitted a proposal for amendment to the COR, other members would then express either support or disagreement to it. Those who disagree may then propose the amendment(s) to the proposed amendment. This process continues until the time for the debate is over when the voting process would begin. A proposal that does not have the required number of votes would be rejected.

Yes, this is an interesting exercise where all of us could familarize ourselves with the basics of the legislative process. And it would be more interesting, when our membership is larger.

Best Regards

Eric Lim (lpc1998)


"M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org> wrote:
Eric,
Yes, there was a typo in the COR. I corrected it. Thanks for careful
reading.
And thanks for your proposals. I copied them to a page in Wiki.
I think, they are useful. The Associated Membership would actually also
included Filia's suggestions about conditional membership.
I have also put together all the proposals on COR so far received. They are
at http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/ProposedRulesSummary
Anybody can add comments on this page, even without Wiki registration.
Please, move yoru further diceussion there.

The rules are somehow growing after all. But I think this is a useful
exercise. We can devise model rules that coudl serve as an example for any
democratic deliberative organization. And this process shows that more
people together have always more wisdom than just one person, however bright
she might be.

Mirek

lpc1998 writes:
...
> However, we are on the right track. Let us keep the Current Operating Rules.
>
> There is an obvious error in Rule 4. It should read "... until a consensus corresponding to either 2. or 3. (not 3. or 4.) is

....


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]