Dear all,
First, before one can answer Mirek's questions, the
group should decide what it is. I published
this on the wikki back in April - (my answers to Mirek's questions below
it)
WDDM - Structure
Possible structural options
that the WDDM members could consider — my view of their pro's and
con's:
- Organisation
?
If it is be an organisation, the implication is it
would act on behalf of the members, that in turn implies —
a) empowering
selected people to speak on behalf of the organisation and it’s members, which
will require —
1. procedure to establish/confirm the opinion of the
members. 2. rules which the selected would have to conform to. 3. strict
penalties for failing to comply.
b) The need for funds to support the
organisational structure (internally and externally) 1. Funds can be obtained
from many sources, the real problem occurs when the source is removed, the
organisation would collapse. 2. The easiest way to break any organisation, or
industry, is to make available large sums of money (grants etc) which would then
increase the infrastructure and overheads then cut off the money
supply.
c) Voting/Consensus. 1. The members would leave/delegate the
action to the organisation. 2. Individual initiative would be eliminated due
to needing approval of the other members. 3. Theoretical objections would
over-rule practical application due to the lack of practical
experience.
- Association
?
Implies/requires action by the
members. a) The core of the association needs nothing more than the members
have now i.e. the means to communicate. 1. The structural requirements
would/could be simple and least cost.
b) The power of WDDM would be in
the individual members’ willingness to act on their own initiative. 1. There
is not, nor can be, one way to achieve democracy due to the historic, cultural
and social differences that exist world-wide. 2. The existing power
structures in different countries may/will need different solutions to resolve
the situation. 3. Theoreticians can advise, but theory (by definition is
untested) can only be a guide, the responsibility for the actions must be with
the ones prepared to make the decision to act. 4. All WDDM members should
support the actions of members that fit within the frame of the Mission
Statement
c) An example of the above was in the Public run Village
Referendum http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/referendum/ 1. It challenged politicians, officials, and corporate
power, 2. It claimed, not requested, the right of the citizens. 3. It was
done as a citizen (I did not use my position as a Parish Councillor). 4. I
knew I had broken the rules, I suspect I broke a few laws. 5. To cover the
potential of retaliation on the other people involved I asked for some
international help, requesting they emailed the Chief Executive, and the Leader
of the Council, with copies to the local papers, congratulating them on
supporting the referendum i.e. it was a Catch-22. 6. Mistakes were made,
lessons learned, I would be reluctant to claim the lessons can be defined as
global rules, but they do indicate items that need
attention.
Only the individual can make those decisions
according to their own situation.
- Summary -
a) An association can grow/evolve to become an
organisation but it is difficult to imagine a devolution from organisation to
association. 1. Unclear as to how many members the group would need to in
order to be an effective organisation. 2. Ditto with how much
money.
b) Association Communication Structure (I would suggest something
similar to Phoenix http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/phoenix)
1.The principle is - (using Yahoo type
principles and terminology)
1) Central list i.e. WDDM 2) Continent lists i.e.
WDDM (Europe) 3) Country lists WDDM (UK)
2. Committee The founder
members in each of the lowest level list form a committee and start a Country
list. The reason for the committee is to 1) get more than one perspective
in any reports issued 2) to have the ability to translate reports in to other
languages of their multi-cultural society. 3) be active. 4) publish their
own country website.
3. List 'Owner' The nominated member of that
committee becomes 1) the list 'owner', the other members being
'moderators'. 2) the one who can publish reports of any activities on the
Continental list i.e. a Continental list member. 3) a continent
'moderator'. Ditto upwards to WDDM. If it really took off County/Regional
lists could be added on the same principle i.e. WDDM (UK-Kent)
4.
Discussion. 1) Any 'debate' would be only be done at the lowest level due to
the impracticalities of 1000's trying to contribute. 2) The largest list I am
on has nearly 6000 members and has very strict rules i.e. any one can contribute
their perspective, but no one is allowed to contradict someone else's
contribution because other list members are taken <quote> 'to be old and
ugly enough to make their own mind up'<end quote>, and it works extremely
well. The exception being, subjects being mixed on one list, hence, the
reason I developed Phoenix.
c)
Web. 1. It should be a 'one stop' shop window for democracy under the banner
of WDDM and it's Mission Statement (Mirek has made a good start with that, it
will improve once the preliminary text is removed). 2. If the association
principle is adopted, it could list the country groups for aspiring democrats to
join via their own countries website. ===================
Mirek's questions. How To Proceed with WDDM
Organizing?
Dec. 18, 2005: This is proposal for conducting a poll among
the WDDM members. Please feel free to comment on this proposal in any way
(here in Wiki or in the WDDm mailing list), and add of modify proposed
questions. Discussion of the wording of the poll questions will be closed on
Dec. 25, and after that the questions will be submitted to all the
members. They will have another week (10 days, 2 weeks???) to answer
them.
Proposed questions:
1. Why have you become a WDDM
member?
A1. To associate with others who are active in
finding practical ways of giving the decisions to the people.
2. What should WDDM try to achieve? A2. Promoting
members to be active in their own locality to attract others to join and
increase the knowledge of how DD can be introduced.
3. Does WDDM need a decision making mechanism
(voting)?
A3. Only for very minimal specified tasks i.e. agreeing an email protocol
etc. If the voting requirement comes under the banner of 'administration
only' it would cover to many unspecified things.
A4. No, the only agreement needed is to decide what
type of group it is, then the members can decide how to progress ..... or leave
if it does not suit their requirements.
5. Should instead a small group of active WDDM
members formulate all the basic documents (Mission. Goals, Rules, Voting
procedures)?
A5. Association or Organisation? An association only needs two things a)
Mission statement, and b) active members (active in starting DD, not active on
the list/web).
6. Do you want to be a part of the group?
A6. Association - Yes, Organisation - No.
7. Should the WDDM mailing list be fully moderated
(any postings would have to be approved by one or two moderators to avoid tons
of junk mail)?
A7. Yes, multiple group postings should be deleted, ditto
contradicting/disputing other people emails/actions, they can present
their own opinion as a seperate entity.
1. Do you need interactive dynamical site? -
No. 2. Do you like/dislike WDDM Wiki? - Neither, do not
have the time to get involved in it. 3. How complicated is
this Wiki to use? - Too complicated, and everything should be open to
everyone. 4. Have you tried to read http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/GettingStarted? - Yes, but ditto No 2. 5. Should Wiki
be replaced or supplemented by something else interactive? What? - A simple web
as a directory to what members are doing in their own locality/country. (that
does presuppose they are doing something more than
advocating) Regards
Bernard
|