Re: [WDDM] Several WDDM business items

["Bruce Eggum" <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com>]

Dear Nico,

Thank you for the generous offer. This is what is needed to begin a peoples government or organization. The ability to vote, as in LeParlement and Parliament Experiment is great to choose which idea, initiative to carry on to approval by board or referendum.

Again, we have not yet had the numbers of people interested in participating so perhaps we could begin with the WDDM Board which has not had time to develop their own process.

As we get into "production" it may be we can utilize your great site.

Thanks for accepting the responsibility to be a board member.

All the Best, Bruce

On 5/31/07, Nicolas Durand < nicolas(at)durand.ch> wrote:

Dear all,

I'll gladly step up on the executive board for this year!

Regarding WDDM "internal initiatives", motions, etc. why would we not use the Enitiatives system, e.g. http://wddm.enitiatives.org/ (this url still points to the Swiss web site, but can be changed soon into a WDDM only web site).

The concept is like in a (still inexistent) real electronically-ruled DD country, like Switzerland:

-          all WDDM members can create Enitiatives (basically, launch an idea or an "initiative")

-          other members can discuss it, modify it, and vote for or against it

-          when a given number of people have voted (could be e.g. 10% of all WDDM members), if the average is positive, a working group summarizes the discussion into a motion, submits it to WDDM members for approval (just to check that the motion really reflects the discussion)

-          WDDM members vote to approve or reject the motion

I agree with Bruce: the Executive board should take decisions and apply them without having to ask members every time (except of course to modify the charter, etc.), but members would have a referendum right – this could also be done on Enitiatives, but with less votes necessary.

The advantage is that there could be a discussion BEFORE a lengthy vote is organized.

Another advantage is that everything would happen online. Any one could subscribe to the "threads" = Enitiatives that are of interest to him/her (to get email alerts). A "memory" would be kept. Discussions would be ordered by "thread", instead of being mixed up in mailboxes.

What do you think?

Nico

P.S: in case anyone is wondering, I created www.Enitiatives.org – I would adapt it and put it at the disposal of WDDM – evidently free of charge.

---

From: Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net [citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net]
Sent: jeudi, 31. mai 2007 20:32
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: [WDDM] Several WDDM business items

Hi All,

I'd like to discuss the following three points concerning WDDM business.

#1.  Moving from discussion to decision - with specific reference to PVR's thoughts about 'partyless or truer democracy.'
#2.  Richard Moore's resignation from the executive board.
#3.  Executive board communications.

These points are discussed below.

#1. Moving from discussion to decision
PVR's most recent note of 5/28 (attached below) defines a specific program:
"The first step, I think, should be to come to a conclusion that we cannot do away with representative democracy at least for the time being. We need to redefine Direct Democracy as Democracy where people have direct say in matters of governance through their representatives without the intermediary of political parties within the elected house"

If PVR, or anyone else, has a firm recommendation on goals for WDDM, we do have a charter which specifies how programs and issues may be brought to decision.  That charter is published at the following address:
                    http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/charter.html

The following steps are specified by the WDDM charter:
A. A member posts a proposal for discussion.  Perhaps s/he modifies the proposal based on that discussion.
B. A member posts a proposal and requests that it be seconded by other members.  For the current year, the charter sets the number of seconds required at three.
C. The initiator or 'owner' of a properly seconded motion tells WDDM to post the motion for decision (adoption/rejection) by the membership.   Business motions require a simple majority of votes for adoption.  A charter amendment however, requires approval by 2/3 of the voters.

#2. Richard Moore's resignation.
Disappointing.  I just haven't seen anything deeply troublesome in the recent WDDM discussions either at a personal or political level.
Given that the election occurred only a few weeks ago, we should ask the fourth certified candidate, Nicholas Durand, to fill the position vacated by Richard.
Nicholas, are you willing to take on this responsibility?

#3. Executive Board Communications
Charter item 8 specifies that executive board communications shall be open.  Both George Kokkas and I have agreed to implement that requirement by adding a forum for executive board communications.  That forum is write-enabled for all candidates for the board in the recent WDDM election, and is read-enabled for all other members.  Charter item 11 specifies that all decisions of the executive board are subject to automatic referendum, but this decision seems pretty obvious.  If no one objects we will skip the referendum on this.  But if anyone objects to this executive board decision we'll take it to referendum vote as called for in the charter.

Mark Antell, member
WDDM Executive Board

--
Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA, www.doinggovernment.com; Check out my Blog too: bruceeggum.blogster.com