a year now, I asked for comments about it before, there were no objections so
far, neither you have objected to it before ....
NO, to me it was obvious and I thought someone would object. The point is it was not an approved mission statement for WDDM. I am sorry I was so busy objecting I was trying not to. But now it must be objected to. I think the wording is to harsh.
Than you go on:
Anybody can subscribe to OPEN_WDDM without any approval, subscription to
this other list is independent of the WDDM membership. So such subscribers can
be considered WDDM e-mail members if you wish. Read the last sentence at:
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/join.php
I remind that we had been discussing those complicated schemes with waiting
periods for permanent member admission at length before. In the end the
conclusion seemed to be to do it as we do it now. I remind that if we introduce
complicated member admission procedures, somebody will have to implement them.
Mirek, the conclusion is not simply what you decide to post on the Website. We would best get this all together and agree on it first.
You did not even HAVE an "Open" elist until perhaps a month ago. I recently suggested to have new members on the Open and now that is written there. NO DECISION But go the rest of the way than. They are not members for 60 days, and than must petition for it and WDDM members VOTE and agree on the new member. Than you have information about them BEFORE they are members. For the last two months you have been saying who is this? Do they agree to DD? Well, get an appropriate membership going and we will know if this is baggy natzi or sloppy sue before they become members.
If you like this idea, I can write it up and post on Forum as a petition for referendum.
Mirek continues:
Re:
[Bruce said} > WDDM is not a government, it
> cannot be a DD example.
Mirek said: WDDM can be anything that we collectively decide it to be. We are a group, a
community, so if we use DD internally, we will become a DD example.
Bruce says, here is the catch all that Antonio's delusion caused him to say we had no right to dictate to the world what DD would be. (DD example for the WORLD)
I continually said we are not nor can we be a DD example for the world. We are simply an organization.
The reality is we can only USE dd principles to operate WDDM internal organization. It has nothing to do with the world at all. If someone chooses to look at how we run internal WDDM and if they choose to structure similar, than they are choosing freely as they could any other site which allowed them to view internal structure. If instead of DD principles, we used
Sociocratic Hierarchy as you have suggested, than we would be a
Sociocratic Hierarchy example for the world.
BUT our goal is not to make our organization an example for anyone. Our goal is to structure WDDM internally so we can discuss and decide matters FOR WDDM in a democratic manner. Since we are operating in Cyberland, it is useful to use I&R as the system to bring initiatives to the discussion floor (Forum) and decide (Your new vote system) is all written, not a verbal meeting.
The I&R system is also somewhat known to most members and is also likely to be used in their form of government.
That is it. Than we can go on to developing the links and educational materials to offer those seeking information on Direct Democracy. Please keep this in mind when you read the next paragraphs of Mirek's post.
Because we want to promote DD, I suggest that we use DD principles internally,
and become a DD example, otherwise we can hardly have any credibility.
So I would say we MUST be a DD example in the first place, and only then we can
add on more functions/goals - just my personal suggestion and conviction at
this moment.
I hope you will send in soon some more voices/votes on the subject on the
Mission (are you for/against the present wording of the Mission?),
and on the member admission, so we can finally close this item.
Mirek
Bruce: NO we can not close the membership item. It is changing daily and has not been approved
Kind Regards, Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Eggum wrote:
> Dear all,
> There have been "discussions" but not necessarily "decisions". Indeed,
> we had no established way to "vote". Mirek, Thank you for setting up a
> voting process. Please submit the process of voting in writing so any
> person who accepted the "election" position would know how to do it.
> Where votes are sent and how to access them etc.
>
> The present "Mission Statement" appeared, but I did not discuss it
> because there were other matters, like who was a member.
>
> I think this statement would piss off a lot of business people,
> entrepreneurs, and others.
>
> "EVERYWHERE, the people of planet Earth are angry, frustrated, and
> disappointed with their political systems, for dictators are still
> tyrants, and so-called democracies are undeniably and clearly
> undemocratic. Politics still favors the powerful, and political parties
> are not only filled with incompetent opportunists, but in this highly
> technological world they are obsolete."
>
> Bruce: We are trying to establish DD with government. To call these
> people we are trying to establish communication with: "forked-tongued
> politicians, greedy, uncaring businessmen," really screws that up.
>
> On WDDM Website: Earth, people are weary of forked-tongued politicians,
> greedy, uncaring businessmen, and the continuous wars they initiate.
> Everywhere, people seek new ways to govern their societies; ways that
> would be more honest and just, promising a better and safer future for
> themselves and their children. They seek — and they are finding — new
> ways that do promise a better and safer future. Among these pioneers,
> the overwhelming consensus is that, of all these new ways,
> "Participatory" Democracy, also known as "Direct" Democracy, is the most
> promising path to that better future.
>
> So, we best establish an AIM of what we are doing here.
> I completely oppose the present "mission statement".
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 2/26/07, M. Kolar wrote:
>
> Dear all!
>
> I remind you that I wrote on Feb. 2:
> > Here we could at first at least try to finalize some basic things
> that are
> > long overdue, that determine how WDDM is viewed from the outside
> world, one
> > issue at a time (for example, one simple question each week or
> two - would
> > that be a reasonable time scale?).
> >
> > We can start with the character of the WDDM (I do not mean now
> whether it
> > should be an organization or association or whatever; let's
> accept for now
> > that it is just a group of supposedly DD advocates without any fixed
> > structure). The question is: should we be a model of society at
> large (a
> > future DD society), and accept as members anybody who has some
> interest in
> > how the society is organized and governs itself, or should we be
> a group of
> > people who share a rather well defined set of ideas about what
> democracy is,
> > and concentrate on promoting this vision.
>
>
> WDDM has no right to tell anyone what to do. WDDM is to provide
> information, advocacy for ALL DD methods. WDDM is not a government, it
> cannot be a DD example. WDDM can put this information on the website and
> links for people to refer to. WDDM can provide communication methods,
> where people can ask questions etc. but WDDM cannot be responsible for
> an individuals views nor endorses them.
>
> >
> > So for the next while I'll be excepting here only contributions
> concerning
> > this questions probably until we reach a reasonable consensus.
>
> Then later I asked specifically about new member requirements.
> The only response to this request was this one:
>
> Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net wrote:
> > Mirek,
> > Thanks for the reminder on the issue of minimum membership
> > requirements. I agree that we should enforce the presently posted
> > requirement that new members must affirm postive interest in DD
> (or at
> > least democracy improvement). Mark Antell
> > ------------------
>
> I agree with Mark.
>
> Can we now close this matter?
>
>
> Bruce- NO
> We have people joining "automatically" with no review at all.
> I suggest that people could "join" our OPEN email list, and than they
> would be "email members" which is what the majority of Move On members are.
>
...............