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 -----
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.