Re: [WDDM] Facets of Truth

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

Dear PVR

Unfortunately maybe, you missed the great damper of WDDM "discussions" which kept it from even voting on how to vote. This was caused by various members who seemed to want anarchy instead of democracy. Thus no "Charter" was written/revised since the original which was incomplete.

We also had "inactive" people who would turn up once a year or so, make noise but never be around to make decisions. Quorum of members? That is why we now have the first board. Please, they have hardly had time to meet and you want to get rid of them?

There must be organization  to an organization. This provides a system where members can express themselves, make basic decisions for the group. The group can than decide to endorse certain  methods or decide to advertise DD to the people as a concept. Of course that means they must decide what DD is first thus the need to discuss the matter and vote. How can "the group" take on "the political space" if it is not united in it's definitions of DD? We need to be able to define these things and post out "beliefs" on the website with handouts, flyer's etc.

We must allow the Board time to begin ,,,,,,, and than accomplish it's tasks before we jump to other methods.

Bruce

On 3 Jun 2007 02:20:57 -0000, Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:

Dear all,
Everyone of us is unique and each one of our opinions is a facet of truth. Also each one of us has our predilections, our pet ideas. Nothing wrong with that since it forms the motivation for our action. About my suggestion for redefining DD, it was aimed at being action-oriented and taking on the world wide network of so-called democracy in the present form. I agree with Mirek that it represents only a intermediate stage in our final goal of True Democracy, however theoretical it may sound.

Mark has declared that he is a stickler for constitutionalism. This is essential in an organization. But emphasis on this aspect in a group like WDDM would convert it into one more political party at a global level. We need a dynamic association to enter the political space instead of being bogged down by organizational matters.

The current definition of DD is well expressed in initiatives like that of Nicole Durand, Echarp's variation of it, Roy Daine's myverdict, and the canadian initiative. Our in-built repulsion to authoritarianism and our earning for individual freedom is the basic motivation. But we need to keep the ultimate goal of taking on the political space while integrating these ideas into our mission since otherwise we will remain merely a discussion forum and nothing more. I think we should first decide on how we are going to take on the political parties on ground and check whether whatever we do is in line with this final goal.

The very fact that only a handful of members are discussing indicates that presently WDDM is not attractive for open discussion. The formation of the executive board is a damper. Mirek's suggestion that it is meant for carrying out decisions made by members is appropriate. Since we are in a preliminary stage, may be the present board should be dissolved and a new board elected, if needed, in the future. The WDDM charter needs to be modified appropriately.

PVR

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