Re: [WDDM] [cicdd] Re: [WDDM] NO more Resignations- Let's start again!!

[Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>]

Aspirants for democracy,

With Bernard and Antonio leaving, I see not much chance for me to stay in the WDDM list.
I may be misunderstanding George, but it seems to me he is advocating something almost the opposite of DD:
a rotating membership of a committee like the UN Security Council, with a senior members' category having more voting power than the other members.

--	Doug Everingham
====

Dear George, and dear WDDM members

I agree with Bernard's position below, and therefore:
please accept my resignation from the current WDDM

Yes, George, WDDM has suffered, and is still suffering, from
a childhood illness: that of one's wish to rule over others.

Really, I've already done my "Let's try it!!" democratic duty.

Indeed, as you can know, I have been a member of WDDM-1.
What you can't know, it is that when WDDM has died, thanks
to the idiocy of some bureaucrats wanting to rule over direct
democracy, I and Mirek and George Sagi (WDDM-1 funder)
discussed about the opportunity to keep WDDM alive, with a
new WDDM domain (since Pino, the WDDM-1 secretariat
and web-master, gave up being the WDDM web-master but
he maintained the original WDDM domain property).

It happened two years ago.  To keep on with a WDDM 2 being
up, a new WDDM domain had to be purchased.  I and Mirek
agreed to set up a WDDM 2 with him as the web-master, and
I as the funder. So I made a donation for a two years WDDM
Internet account as my last contribution.

I made so because of reasons of consistency with the democratic
mission I subscribed as a WDDM-1 founding member. At start, I
but said to Mirek that I was happy to found WDDM-2, but I didn't
want to be a WDDM member any more, to avoid discussions with
the bureaucrats like those that infected WDDM-1.
Yet Mirek insisted to have me in the new WDDM-2 membership,
and I accepted.

All of this, to say that I've made my "let's try", all during these
WDDM-2 years of life. I'm sorry to admit, my trial has failed.
That is, after these two years, I see again the bureaucrats who
manage to set up rules over what should be Direct Democracy,
and yourself, George Kokkas, who suggest WDDM  to install a
"Decision Committee" without having any democratic policy --
say, a policy coming from the territory bottom-up -- to... decide?


I think I've concluded my WDDM-2 trial.  Direct Democracy
is not a matter of voting directly, IMHO . It is a matter of :

1. originating policies from the territory bottom-up; and
2. controlling directly those representatives who may have been
put in charge of implementing 1. policies (see Simpol).

All the remaining is Democracy without matter, a dream for
generals without army, or for aspirant DD drivers who put the
cart before the horse -- like the charter before the people.

In conclusion, I agree with Bernard, and subscribe:

I will be interested in returning, or joining a progressive group,
if there is any sign of willingness to TRY different approaches.

Meanwhile ........ you should make good progress with me out
of the way.


Be well,

antonio



At 6:48 +0200 30-01-2007, George L. Kokkas Law Office wrote:

   Dear WDDM members,

 we found finally a solution in the DD oriented structure models for  the Greek DD Movement, by having in all  our decisional committees a majority of  permanent  and really active members and a minority of  all the other members (including the rest of the active), selected by sortition and  giving them all a chance to decision-making  by rotation, until the whole list of members finishes (for instance in a proposed 11 members  Coordination Committee of WDDM, we can  appoint 6 or 7 members, as permanent for a period of one or two years and 5 or 4  members  rotating among all the rest of members every six months  in the post of this main organ of WDDM - similarly with the  Security Council of United Nations, that has the ex super powers of the world as permanent members and all the other countries, as Greece in this period , as members of this decisional mean  of the entire world).
    This is my  FINAL  PROPOSAL for WDDM structure and decision making procedures, even with simple e-mail systems, coming out  of my experience as a democrat lawyer and  as  almost the only active Founding member of WDDM and  an elected ex Vice Spokesperson of WDDM,  in order to avoid our childhood illnesses in the future!

Let's try it!!

George L. Kokkas

NGO "Forum for Citizens' Democracy"
----- Aρχικό μήνυμα -----

(snip)




On 1/28/07, Bernard Clayson <bernard-clayson(at)shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:

Please accept my resignation from wddm.

Reasons:

a) I am too busy locally to watch paint dry on this list, and it is a non-contributary distraction
from my primary objective - to find out how democracy works with people.
12 years ago I started constructing New Political System, it had numerous levels and a defined
structure.
Ditto with Lee's model and others.
About 5 years ago I constructed Phoenix, a multi-level structured email system that was capable of
keeping everyone informed without involving those with other interests on the other lists.
The most vocal objection (same name as a USA Vietnam war program) came from someone who realises (at
last) that -
"I think a good idea to recognize that we each have different talents and"

b) "to join together like people into nine groups to bring out their specialty is a good idea.
Nine? at the current rate of progress, in 20 years time it will sink in that nine is totally
inadequate for the job in hand, and it will be totally academic to most of us anyway.

c) It would not be too wild a guess that these 'nine' groups would be on the web i.e. we would have
to go looking to follow what is happening.
I live in the UK (which is rapidly heading to dictatorship), yet I get regular summaries with links
to download the full detail .... if it interests me.
I can't be the only one with a slow connection, and if a dictatorial government can keep me
informed, why can't wddm.

d) "we need an organisation" - even a one-man business operates in different modes, an electrician
would not (if he wanted to live) connect to the mains whilst thinking about his tax returns.
Ditto with companies, government and organisations, yet 6 years later, wddm is still trying to
function on a single plane email system, and complains about confusion.

e) A founding member of wddm is rebuked (for making a suggestion) with -
"The topic is WDDM Charter, not various kinds of DD or government. If you want to advocate for a
specific DD model or type, you can do so on WDDM Website using Forum and WIKI"
The same dictatorial approach that caused me to resign the first wddm.

f) "we need a voting system" - in 25 years time, assuming a voting system is introduced, you will
have voted yourselves in to a corner with the advocates saying "well we voted on that".
Which is the situation that gave cause to my second public-run referendum.

g)  In 30 years time, it may occur to some that there are more important aspects than voting.

If someone could please show me the exit, I would appreciate it.

I will be interested in returning, or joining a progressive group, if there is any sign of
willingness to TRY different approaches.

Meanwhile ........ you should make good progress with me out of the way.

Adios amigos

Regards

Bernard