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

00840: Re: [WDDM] Re: Toward a WDDM Charter

From: "Bruce Eggum" <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:08:20 -0600
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: Toward a WDDM Charter

Dear Antonio,

You are a founding member of WorldWide Direct Democracy Movement. You agreed it should be an organization when you signed the founding Charter.. You participated in meetings to write a draft Organizational Charter. You were very concerned that the Organization be named wddm.org. Now you say it is not an Organization but "an educational discussion forum"?

I suggest you realize the people of WDDM Org. want an Organization as originally intended. If you want an educational forum, than I suggest you begin one.

The structure of an Organization, and a Forum are different.

Regards, Bruce

>>2B. WDDM will strive to implement direct democracy in its own
>>operations.  However, in the initial organizational phase WDDM will
>>assign considerable responsibility to an executive committee.
>>
ANTONIO SAYS
>Disagree: WDDM is an educational discussion forum, provided to all
>participants by a hosting team. The hosting team is a self-selected
>group who have taken the initiative to work together and facilitate
>the forum. (thanks! :-) ) I support the team in working together in
>whatever way suits them. If they are doing a good job, they will
>listen to participant feedback and they will improve the quality of
>the forum over time. My role, as a participant, is to (a) provide
>feedback to the hosts, (b) participate in the discussion if it is
>useful, (c) find another forum if the discussion is not useful.



On 12/12/06, Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it > wrote:
At 9:53 -0600 4-12-2006, Bruce Eggum wrote:
>Toward a WDDM Charter.
>
>Response to Richard, Mark and group,
>
>I am concerned your "hosting team" which has no "structure" under
>which to operate could be dictorial. The difference in a "hosting
>team" and a "board" is that the Board would have limited power, be
>required to have a referendum on SOME matters, and the membership
>could use I&R to make "corrections".
>
>The original reason for a "board" was because not enough people were
>active, even in voting. Thus no business could be carried out, not

(snip)


Richard, and all

I agree with your statement below:

quote:
=============
>>  Disagree: This is an attempt to impose priorities on people
>>  from 'on high'.  In addition it invites unnecessary divisiveness
>>  over the choice of priorities. Furthermore, it encourages the
>>  existence of a centralized government in order to enforce the
>>  priorities."
==============
endquote


Actually, Democracy does heavily suffer from the countless and
somehow obsessive attempts of corporate bureaucratism wanting
to set up their leadership as the chartered structure of democracy.

antonio


>On 12/4/06, Richard Moore <rkm(at)quaylargo.com> wrote:
>
>>1. Organizational Goals.  We’d like to make a better world.  One in
>>which all adults have equality under law, plus the four basic
>>freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion (or more broadly,
>>freedom of conscience), freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
>>
>
>Disagree: This is an attempt to impose priorities on people from 'on
>high'. In addition it invites unnecessary divisiveness over the
>choice of priorities. Furthermore, it encourages the existence of a
>centralized government in order to enforce the priorities.
>
>>1C.  WDDM is dedicated to the study and education of direct
>>democracy.  This option should allow tax-advantaged contribution
>>(under US law) to WDDM as an educational non-profit institution.
>>
>
>Agree: Democracy itself (without specific social / economic
>programs) should be our focus, and WDDM doesn't need to take an
>official, active part in initiatives that threaten tax status. Its
>participants can do that wearing a different hat.
>
>>2. Organizational Methods - commitment to direct democracy
>>
>>2A.WDDM will be an exemplar for direct democracy.  As much as
>>possible, decision making power will flow from direct vote of the
>>membership.
>>
>>OR
>>
>>2B. WDDM will strive to implement direct democracy in its own
>>operations.  However, in the initial organizational phase WDDM will
>>assign considerable responsibility to an executive committee.
>>
>
>Disagree: WDDM is an educational discussion forum, provided to all
>participants by a hosting team. The hosting team is a self-selected
>group who have taken the initiative to work together and facilitate
>the forum. (thanks! :-) ) I support the team in working together in
>whatever way suits them. If they are doing a good job, they will
>listen to participant feedback and they will improve the quality of
>the forum over time. My role, as a participant, is to (a) provide
>feedback to the hosts, (b) participate in the discussion if it is
>useful, (c) find another forum if the discussion is not useful.
>
>>3. Organizational Methods - encouraging discourse
>>
>>3A. WDDM shall continue to maintain a BBS or WIKI to which all
>>members may post proposals or opinions.  Many electronic BBS
>>systems are afflicted with the same problem: they provide high
>>visibility to the fastest and most aggressive multiple posters.
>>The executive board shall, early on, propose methods to calm this
>>problem, probably by making it easy for each BBS user to locate
>>input from voices that they value*.
>>
>>OR
>>
>>3B. WDDM shall continue to maintain a BBS or WIKI to which all
>>members may post proposals or opinions.
>>
>
>This is a tricky area. It is very difficult to maintain openness and
>quality at the same time. It seems to me that experimentation will
>be needed, an ongoing evolution of process.
>
>As per my previous comments, I don't like the term 'executive
>board'. I see it as a 'hosting team'. Certainly it is a good idea
>for them to send out ideas, and get feedback from participants. But
>in the end I support the team in using their own best judgement
>about how to improve the forum. The value of the forum is not
>measured by how happy the current participants are, but rather by
>the long term growth in the quality of discussion.
>
>One of the big 'divides' in our dialog about democracy has to do
>with voting. I would be in favor of another email list,  that is
>devoted to discussion only of direct democracy, based on the
>assumption that voting is unhelpful. On that list, postings in favor
>of voting can be moderated out. On the existing list, we can
>continue to debate voting methods, and the value of voting.
>
>>4. Membership
>>
>>4A. Membership is limited to those who agree that governance would
>>be improved by expansion and facilitation of direct democracy,
>>deliberation and consensus.  Active members must also commit to
>>review proposals and vote on motions posted on the WDDM website.
>>
>>OR
>>
>>4B. As above plus some language recognizing groups within WDDM.
>>
>
>Disagree: I think this approach is unnecessary, unworkable, and a
>drain of forum energy, as per previous comments. Similarly, I would
>dispense with all the proposed Business Rules.
>
>>---------------------
>>
>>* (From Item 3A above)
>>
>>Possible suggestions for regulating aggressive multiple postings include:
>>
>>     i)     The BBS or WIKI shall support tools allowing each reader
>>to select voices that they wish to consult first.
>>
>>     ii)     The BBS or WIKI shall provide a default, high priority
>>location for executive board review and recommendation on each
>>proposal.
>>
>>     iii)     The WIKI shall automatically order postings, based
>>perhaps on a ‘poster score’  calculated from the average number of
>>readers per posting.
>>
>
>If the hosting team is willing to devote time and attention to
>'pruning and tuning' the Wiki/BBS space, that is a great service to
>all of us, for which we should be grateful. Again, experimental
>evolution is called for.
>
>I'd be in favor of the hosting team structuring the space somehow
>around concepts and issues. There could be perhaps two categories of
>entries: those considered 'useful' by the team and 'others', which
>are either 'less useful' or 'not yet reviewed'. The 'useful' ones
>could be always 'opened up' for viewing, while the 'others' could be
>represented by a name & subject line, and could be viewed by
>clicking on that line. This would allow contributors to post
>whatever they want, while making it convenient for readers to ignore
>the 'others' if they so choose. The team can delete any postings (at
>review time) that are clearly off topic or offensive.
>
>best regards,
>richard
><http://cyberjournal.org>


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


--
Bruce Eggum, Gresham Wisconsin, USA, www.doinggovernment.com; Check out my Blog too: bruceeggum.blogster.com

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