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

00929: Re: [WDDM] Re: Toward a WDDM Charter

From: "Bruce Eggum" <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:52:59 -0600
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: Toward a WDDM Charter

Dear Bernard, I must respond within your letter to WDDM and Filia. (I add all Antonio's extra addys)
Dear Filia,

BC It does not require everyone to change to my way of thinking, it does require democracy to allow a choice, so far we have not had a choice, not even the ability to say yes or no to what is offered.

BE How would you and the 46 others make a choice, when there is no structure to do so? (democracy) But you go on to say no organizational structure (Charter) is needed. ????

BC Below is email I sent to Mirek when he was asking for suggestions on Structure, it is on the group web, and Mirek expressed a preference for Association at the time ( he may have changed his mind since).
Correct me if I am wrong - since then Richard Moore has said the same, Ted Becker made his opinions clear with 'Gosh, you guys and your worldwide "organizational" stuff.', does not sound as if he is impressed with this organisation crap.

BE or perhaps they were referring to WDDM's discussion ------------- We can't meet at the local pub and hold up our hands for a count. This is cyber land. We must develop tools and methods to hold meetings etc. through networking. DD will need this also, for discussion etc. If we cannot run a simple org on the net, how are you going to do DD government on the net?

And if it progresses along the current lines, we will have X years debate on other documents.
What the remaining members opinions are is anyone's guess, silence can not be presumed as for or against.

BE Again, an organizational structure for discussion and decision. That is what we would like to submit to WDDM and ask for approval. However, some WDDM members refuse to discuss this matter they only say NO without considering the use/need/method.

BC I am not stating a date, although it was declaring my intention to leave if it continues with this ambition.
I have also stated my objections, I can't vote against it, because we do not have voting process, but I can remove my presence.

BE WDDM has no voting process, because you declare we don't need one, and it is a mistake to make one. This confuses others and stops them from voicing or participating in this questionable organization

Regards, Bruce
Ps I will respond to the other portion a bit later.

Regards
Bernard


On 1/15/07, Bernard Clayson < bernard-clayson(at)shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Filia,

It does not require everyone to change to my way of thinking, it does require democracy to allow a choice, so far we have not had a choice, not even the ability to say yes or no to what is offered.
Below is email I sent to Mirek when he was asking for suggestions on Structure, it is on the group web, and Mirek expressed a preference for Association at the time ( he may have changed his mind since).
Correct me if I am wrong - since then Richard Moore has said the same, Ted Becker made his opinions clear with 'Gosh, you guys and your worldwide "organizational" stuff.', does not sound as if he is impressed with this organisation crap.
And if it progresses along the current lines, we will have X years debate on other documents.
What the remaining members opinions are is anyones guess, silence can not be presumed as for or against.
I am not stating a date, although it was declaring my intention to leave if it continues with this ambition.
I have also stated my objections, I can't vote against it, because we do not have voting process, but I can remove my presence.

Regards
Bernard
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernard Clayson
To: WDDM webmaster
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:13 AM
Subject: Re WDDM - Structure

Mirek,

I noticed the email did not make a favourable transfer to web site, perhaps this version  will do better, or would you prefer a Word doc.

Regards
Bernard


                                    WDDM - Structure

Possible structural options –

                                     - 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. a 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).
        3) I knew I had broken the rules, I suspect I broke a few laws.
        4) 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.
        5) 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.htm )
        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.


--
Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA
Urge to Surge
http://tinyurl.com/yndynn
http://www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/

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