Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining "a bottom-up origin"

["Bruce Eggum" <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>]

There is no ready made DD process. Each Nation, government entity must write their own, defining who has power, what that power is, what limits apply etc. Sociacracy is a hierarchical structure also. The only difference is their method of reaching consensus. Consensus is not a majik word, it simply means what the majority agree to.

On Nov 24, 2006, at 7:40 PM, jkgonzalez wrote:

>
> Small question: Is “General Circle” a specifiec sociocracy term? Does
> General Circle mean the circle below the top circle or does it mean
> something else?

Yes, it means the circle below the top circle, or board of directors.
The general circle is composed of the operational leaders of the
department or chapter circles plus one or more representatives from the
same department or chapter circles. The general manager or CEO would
also be a part of the general circle.

The top circle is more concerned with long range planning and issues
involving other organizations while the general circle will be more
involved with short term planning and operational issues that affect
more than one departmental circle. The departmental or chapter circles
are concerned with operations and more immediate planning.

The one area that I think isn't so well explained is development. The
circles are responsible for the development of their members and it
seems that this would often be a long range planning issue as well, so
the examples of planning in terms of long and short term is less clear
than the examples suggest, I think.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
http://www.sociocracy.info

We must build structure for all groups to be able to discuss and decide. This is really rules of argument. eh eh eh

With government, we need to define rules which provide the people the final say, as in I&R. Even with a total people network, deciding matters, when it comes to implementation a hierarchical structure is necessary, answerable to the people of course.


Bruce

On 11/21/06, Doug Everingham wrote:

It seems to me we need a method to replace selection of 'elite'
authorities, and  substitute CONSENSUS building, with interlinked
feedback networks of all stakeholders - rather like the organization of
cells in a multi-celled organism, where no organ dominates in toto but
each contributes to interdependent efficiencies: heart, lungs, brain,
glands, skin etc. Such 'organic' democracy is happening as described by
  www.sociocracy.biz
and Dr Shann Turnbull
  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=858244
and slowly being pursued by SmPol adopters  [  www.simpol.org  ]

        --      Doug Everingham
===

From: Giorgio Menon
Date: Mon Nov 20, 2006  8:00:23  PM Australia/Brisbane
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining "a bottom-up origin"
Reply-To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Pras Anand wrote:

>
> If we all get to choose one of three candidates, yet all three
> candidates are controlled or employed by the same administration where
> is the democracy?
>
Offering a wide variety of meat to a vegan is what current democracy is
doing.
Yet i understand Mirek's worries: your proposal seems to offer a
DIFFERENT elite the supremacy (currently in the hand of democracy) via
merits achieved according specific goals/parameters. Now i understand
that this higly ideal elite should guarantee a better distribution (of
wealth, info, etc..) to the many, but what mechanism can even prevent
the new elite to behave like any other elite (ie exploiting the
resources per personal/cast reasons)?

Regards

Giorgio

--
Bruce Eggum, Gresham Wisconsin, USA
Free Movie on Gov http://www.truemajorityaction.org/takeback/
www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
www.doinggovernment.blogspot.com/