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

01179: Re: [WDDM] Progress on a couple of business items.

From: "Bruce Eggum" <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 03:37:49 -0500
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Progress on a couple of business items.

Dear Stickler,

You said: The WDDM charter* in three short paragraphs (articles 9, 10, and 11) discusses decision making.  Article #11 states that all executive board decisions are temporary.  Executive board decisions must be submitted for referendum by the members, and they must be validated by a majority vote.  This may or may not be a good idea.  But it is in the charter which was adopted by a long, open, discussion process, plus a 2/3 vote of approval.

[note --- the charter can be changed]

What you said Stickler is true. Few listened or negotiated the l-o-n-g discussion. I voted for it for one reason. We would have a WDDM Board who could write the procedures they needed to function. They can also write any changes in the Charter they see fit. Yes, at this point we will need a referendum on them but give the Board time to accomplish their work. I have listened to a lot of gibberish of what the Board should do, yee gads you are talking links and we do not even have the procedures to operate nailed down.

Give the Board a month of Sundays to have time to think, meet, plan and brain storm. Perhaps in six months they can give us some real valid processes to make WDDM Better.

To the WDDM Board, I thank you. Take your time and do what you think best. That is all any of us would do.

Regards, Bruce

On 6/1/07, Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net <citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net > wrote:
Hi All,

My previous note mentioned three business items.
Item #1: Moving from Discussion to Decision, with specific reference to "partyless or true democracy."   There's been a lot of discussion on "partyless democracy" of late.  I'd hope that the principals supporting this concept will post an intiative for decisional vote via the process described in our charter*.
Item #2: Filling the Executive Board Vacancy - Done, welcome Nicolas.
Item #3: Automatic referendum on executive board decisions - There's been some discussion on this.  My thoughts on this topic follow:

The WDDM charter* in three short paragraphs (articles 9, 10, and 11) discusses decision making.  Article #11 states that all executive board decisions are temporary.  Executive board decisions must be submitted for referendum by the members, and they must be validated by a majority vote.  This may or may not be a good idea.  But it is in the charter which was adopted by a long, open, discussion process, plus a 2/3 vote of approval.

Automatic referendum on executive board decisions means tight direct democracy control over the executive.  I like the concept and I'd like to try to make it work.  But it can be modified or dropped if need be.  The charter contains two mechanisms for amendment.  The executive board may post a charter amendment.  Or the membership may post a charter amendment via initiative.  In either case, a 2/3 positive vote from the voting membership is necessary for adoption of the charter amendment.

I'm a stickler about constitutionalism.  We all should be.  Democracies don't work unless they have a defined order and method for elections (and for a lot of other issues like citizen rights).  Whether the vote is on issues or representatives, democracy is about a well-described process to determine and carry-out the considered wishes of the constituency.

*  The charter can be found at http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/charter.html

Mark Antell, member
WDDM Executive Board

PS.  There's been some recent fascinating posts (from Lim, Daine, Kolar and Durand) on new methods of DD.   Here's what the article 6 of the WDDM charter says about methods:
"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. "

I do hope and expect that we will be experimenting with Enitiatives this year.  The Enitiatives methodology, as Nicolas has described it, is pretty much identical to the charter method for member-generated initiatives.

PPS.  The executive board has made exactly one decision since it was constituted.  That decision was pretty non-controversial, speaking only to executive board communications.  The charter calls for an automatic referendum on all executive decisions.  Maybe it's a good idea to test the automatic referendum concept on this decision - because the outcome doesn't matter very much.  Nicolas, can Enitiatives handle automatic referendum on executive board decisions?  If not, I'll ask Mirek to post this executive-board decision for referendum using the existing WDDM methodology for elections.

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

Nicolas Durand 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

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