From: | Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> |
---|---|
Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:17:06 +0100 |
Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Toward a WDDM Charter |
Toward a WDDM Charter
To: WDDM Membership
From: Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net
May I request that reviewers read this note completely before
responding? Thank you.
About three months ago I volunteered to help out with a WDDM
charter because I think (as do we all) that direct democracy would
lead to better governance; and that an organization of activists
might help define and implement improved democracy.
On conversation with several WDDM members it became clear
that a number of issues need to be discussed and resolved before
a draft charter can be drafted. So ... you will find below a series
of eight critical issues entitled “Decisions underlying a charter for
WDDM.” The “Decisions” document also includes positions that
might be chosen on these issues. These issues and positions have
been circulated before to a limited group.
I’m now requesting that members of WDDM comment on the
questions and options on a point-by-point basis. While standardized
responses will not be required, I would hope that people would
generally indicate point-by-point whether they support option A, or
option B, or something else entirely.
Following the “Decisions” review and response (let’s say 4 weeks,
ie by Feb 4, 2007), co-sponsors (volunteers welcome) would join in
drafting a proposed charter based on feedback. The “Decisions”
document is exploratory and therefore includes options. The charter
proposal by contrast would not include options. The process for
review, discussion, modification, and approval of the proposed
charter is partly dependant on what the proposed charter says.
Under the process set by option 6A, the proposed charter would
require a 'second' from 10% of the active membership to be posted
for vote. Under any scenario, charter adoption must include a
deliberative process ending with a vote.
Those wishing to take a leadership position in this process will be
expected to motivate other discussion participants.
Best,
Mark Antell
Let me note a personal bias for option A on all of the questions
below. I think that an organization chartered per options A
would be an exemplar of direct democracy.
------------------------
Decisions underlying a charter for WDDM
Positions on the issues below largely define what should be included
in a proposed charter for WDDM.
I. Principles.
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.
1A. WDDM is dedicated to the study, education, and implementation
of direct democracy, deliberation, and consensus at all levels of
governance from the local to the supra-national level. Direct
democracy means enhancement and broadening of initiative, referendum
and recall. It also means use of modern technology to improve
opportunities for deliberation and discourse.
OR
1B. WDDM is dedicated to the study, education, and implementation
of direct democracy at all levels of governance.
OR
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.
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.
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.
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.
II. Business Rules
5. Structure
Can we simply agree to start with the simplest possible structure:
Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary-Treasurer - elected for a one
year term by majority vote? Later, via the charter amendment
process, we could add additional structure including perhaps an
Elections Officer, Ombudsperson, standing committees, etc. etc.
Executive board communications, and other committee
communications shall be open for review by the membership.
6. Initiative. Initiative means a process which allows the
membership to raise an issue and to bring it to binding vote of the
membership.
6A. Any member may post an initiative for discussion. Posting
for decision shall require several "seconds" from the membership."
A two step process for initiatives is established:
-A proposal is posted for discussion by one or more ‘sponsors.’
The ‘sponsors’ of the proposal will decide if they wish to modify
the proposal in response to discussion. If so, the proposal is
modified and reposted for discussion.
-If, after discussion and possible modification, 10% of the
membership agree to second a proposal, then it will be posted as
a motion.
OR
6B. Any member may post an initiative, first for discussion, and
then as a motion for decision.
7. Approval of Motions via Initiative.
7A. Most organizations recognize a distinction between business
motions, versus motions which modify the charter. Business motions
are adopted by a simple majority vote. Charter modification motions
require a super-majority (of those voting) of 66%.
OR
7B. Business motions or charter modification motions are adopted
via a simple majority of those voting. (Author’s note: I don’t
understand how this option would work, but one commenter strongly
requested it. I’ll drop this option unless someone steps in to
explain it.)
8. Referenda on Executive Board Decisions. Referendum is a
process whereby an action of the legislative body is brought to the
membership for validation or disapproval.
8A. The executive board is empowered to pass temporary business
motions; however executive board decisions will be immediately
posted for referendum vote. A simple majority of voting members
is necessary to approve executive board business motions.
Decisions not approved will cease to have any force.
Charter changes may be proposed by the executive committee but
are approved through the normal charter modification process.
OR
8B. Decisions of the executive board may be overridden by the
standard initiative process.
I agree, people said that I would be breaking the law by doing________________________
public-run referendums, I have done two so far .......... and no
one has taken me to court.
That appears to be the biggest reason why democracy does not
progress - fear.
If the advocates do not have the courage of their convictions,
why should anyone take any notice of them.
It also shows why there is a demand for an organisation, they
want something to hide behind.
Not very encouraging is it.
---------------------
* (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.