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

01111: Re: WDDM Board

From: "Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net" <citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 01:02:19 -0400
Subject: Re: WDDM Board

Hello George, Richard, Nicolas, All,

We've got a charter (posted below as recommended reading) and we've got an elected board (George, Richard, Mark), with an alternate (Nicolas) if Richard decides not to take on the responsibility.

There's some unfinished business - a mission statement for example.  The charter proposal included a mission statement, but that part of the proposal did not receive a 2/3 majority vote and therefore did not pass.  A mission statement is part of a charter, and like all charter amendments requires a 2/3 approval*.

Also, we probably should start looking into ways to improve deliberative discussion.  The charter specifically suggests we should look into controlling aggressive posting.

There's some new business - like establishing some working relationships with organizations like More Democracy, the Initiative and Referendum Institute, and many more.  Perhaps we would want to ask volunteers to approach organizations to discuss some ways of working together.  Once negotiated, any working agreements would be normal business items and would only require majority vote* for approval.

Those are my suggested agenda items for now.   I like your idea, George, of asking others to propose other agenda items for board review.

Recognize that the executive board has limited powers under our charter.  It may approve business motions but that approval is temporary, and must be validated by a majority vote.  Note also that proposals can be posted for discussion by any member.  If a proposal is seconded by a substantial number of members (10% of the membership) the sponsor of the proposal may be post it as a motion for vote regardless of the executive board's position.

I also suggest that the executive board normally carry out conversations in the open, that is to say, via posting to the whole membership.  Why not?

Mark Antell, member
WDDM Executive Board

* Majority approval here means a majority of those voting.  2/3 approval means 2/3 of those voting.

-----------------------------------------

Approved Charter for WDDM - 4/12/2007
 

  

I. Charter Review and Adoption Process 

  
1. The sponsor for this charter proposal is Mark Antell.  If 10% of the
membership second this proposal it will be considered a charter
motion.  Due to uncertainties about the current membership, this
requirement shall be met by 3 seconds.  (Sponsor's note: This
requirement has been met).  The charter motion will then be posted
for a two week period of discussion and voting.  The charter will be
considered adopted if it receives 66% approval by the voting
membership.  Individual points of the charter motion are separable so
it would be possible, for example, to adopt several principles without
necessarily adopting any or all of the proposed business rules.  

  
  
II. Principles of WDDM.

  

2. Definition

Direct democracy means enhancement and broadening of initiative,
referendum and recall.  It also means improved methods for deliberation
and discourse. 

  

3. Mission Statement

Not adopted.

 

4. Organizational Goals.  

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.  Our immediate goal is to
develop a multilingual global network of websites and offline efforts
committed to encouraging more direct democratic processes for public
policy decision making.    

  

5. Membership.

Membership is limited to those who tend to think that governance would
be improved by expansion and facilitation of direct democracy,
deliberation and consensus.  Members must also commit to review
proposals and vote on motions.  Further, members commit to civility
towards each other, and respect for minority opinions.  After all, we
have similar goals.       

  

6. Organizational Methods - commitment to direct democracy

WDDM will be an exemplar for direct democracy.  As much as possible,
decision making power will flow from direct vote of the membership. 
And we will strive to test and implement cutting-edge methods to
enhance deliberation.   

  

7. Organizational Methods - encouraging discourse

WDDM shall continue to maintain a Bulletin Board  to which all members
may post proposals or opinions.  Many electronic BBS systems are
afflicted with a problem that they provide high visibility to the most
aggressive multiple posters.  The executive board shall propose (for
membership adoption) methods to calm this problem.


  
III. Business Rules

  

8. Structure

We will start with a very simple structure: a three member executive
board  - elected for a one year term by majority vote from a self
nominated slate of candidates.  Executive board communications, and
other committee communications shall be open for review by the
membership.

  

9. Initiative.  

Initiative means a process which allows the membership to raise an
issue for discussion and to bring it to binding vote of the membership.

Any member may post an initiative for discussion.  If, after a
discussion period of no less than one month, 10% of the membership
agree to second the proposal, then it will be posted as a motion.  Due
to uncertainties about the current membership, for 2007 the seconding
requirement shall be met by 3 seconds.       

  

10. Approval of Initiative Motions 

Motions shall open for vote for two weeks after posting.  Business
motions are adopted by a simple majority vote.  Charter modification
motions require a super-majority (of those voting) of 66%. 

  

11. Referenda on Executive Board Decisions.  

Referendum is a process whereby actions of a governing body are brought
to the membership for validation.

The executive board is empowered to pass temporary business motions;
however executive board decisions will be posted for referendum vote. 
A simple majority of voting members  is required to confirm executive
board business motions.   Decisions not approved will cease to have any
force. 

The executive board is also empowered to interpret the charter, subject
to validation by the membership as above.  


--------------------------

George Kokkas wrote:
 Dear WDDM members,

I am ready to to begin discussions!
How are we going to set up the agenda?
Is someone coordinating the whole issue?
Please comment all!

GeorgeL. Kokkas

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net" <citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net>
To: "Richard Moore" <rkm(at)quaylargo.com>; "M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>; "George L. Kokkas Law Office" <geoko(at)otenet.gr>
Cc: "Bruce Eggum" <Bruce.Eggum(at)gmail.com>; <nicolas(at)enitiatives.ch>; <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>; <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>; wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:23 AM
Subject: WDDM Board


Hello Richard Moore,
Have you decided whether to take the WDDM board position?  If so, the three of us (you, George, and I) plus Mirek, should probably begin some discussions.
I recommend that we use the recently adopted charter as a point of reference for how we do business. I'd also recommend that we keep other candidates: Nicolas, Bruce, Doug, and PVR in the loop. Best,
Mark Antell


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