Re: My Priorities for WDDM: Correcting some errata

["Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net" <citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net>]

Hi All,
Just noticed a couple of errors in my previous note.
1. For some reason the line spacing didn't come out as I wrote it.
Hopefully that's corrected in the copy below.
2. In my comment on "true democracy" and demagogues (item 6), I used the
term direct democracy a couple of times when I meant true democracy.
Also corrected below:

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

Mark Antell, member WDDM Executive Board, wrote:

Just for the heck of it, I figured I’d weigh in with my priorities for
WDDM.  They are:

1. Providing a testing ground for technology-enabled direct democracy.
No kidding.  I really believe in this stuff.   Representative democracy
was the best system ... prior to modern communication technology.  Or to
put it more positively, modern communications technology allows for
fundamental improvements in the average person’s participation in
discourse and decision.  The problem is, we haven’t figured out how
technology-enabled democracy  is supposed to work.  Our
‘physical-gathering’ rules for democracy have a ‘Roberts Rules’ focus on
the current speaker and the current topic.  Technology-enabled democracy
by contrast allows for parallel (asynchronous) discussions on many
topics and many voices at the same time.   But we haven’t figured out
how to run good discourse and decision in the technology-enhanced
communication environment.

Creating processes and rules for direct democracy in the age of modern
comunications –  That is my central priority for WDDM.  I see WDDM not
only as a place to talk and strategize about DD; but also as a place
where we can create modern direct democracy.

I’ve liked plans and activities of a few WDDM members working in this
direction including:
> Dan Rosen’s ‘Vote Direct’ which presents a maybe workable path from
republic to direct democracy.
> Nico Durand’s ‘Enitiatives ’ which allow experimentation on discourse
and decision in the modern communications environment.
> Our own Miroslav Kolar’s patience in encouraging and enabling
discourse and decision-making in his role as WDDM webmaster.
> George Kokkas’s real experience with direct democracy forums provide
significant information on what direct democracy must look like.
> Additionally, our charter’s requirement that executive board
decisions be validated by vote is another cutting-edge experiment.
Interesting, six votes have been cast in the current (closes 6/29)
referendum on an executive board decision (concerning executive board
communications).  Five of six votes to date sustain the executive board
decision.

2.  Improving the WDDM forum including:
>  2A. A policy for dealing with aggressive overposting (although just
now I do not see anything that I’d consider an actionable problem).
>  2B. Better segregation of issues on the forums.  May I ask that
youall have a look at the Forum my civic association maintains
(www.northrosslyn.org).  Our website somewhat segregates discussion by
topic so that we don't have postings on rat control in the same place as
postings on traffic safety.  As long as you’re on the site, you might
have a look at our film, “Save Wilson School.”  Modern communication
doesn’t have to be limited to text.  This film has significantly altered
discourse on saving a park in my neighborhood.  Before the film,
bureaucrats had their way in the press and at all public meetings.
Since the film, people have been listening to the community.

3. Democracy means both discourse and decision.  We're great on the
discourse side, but discouse without decision is not very useful.  How
do we encourage members to propose motions for vote?

4. We should define the responsibilities of the webmaster and elections
authority.  Mirek has done a wonderful job.  Mirek is doing a wonderful
job.  I’d like to formally describe and authorize what he’s doing. I
learned about the concept of electoral tribunal in Costa Rica.  It seems
to me that it is a very attractive institution.

5. Developing relations with other DD groups.

6. The phrase ‘true democracy’ totally doesn’t work for me.  Google up
“true democracy” and the name of  any populist demagogue.  Every one of
them claims their regime is ‘true democracy.’  Hell, Google up “true
democracy” and Stalin, or Hitler.  Yeup.  Goebbels said the Nazi state
was true democracy.  So did Stalin of the Soviet State.  Yike.  I feel
comfortable with the phrases ‘more democracy’ and ‘direct democracy.’
End of lecture from ‘Curmudgeon Mark’.

Thoughts on other people’s priorities:

1. The proposed WDDM mission statement didn't pass during the charter
vote.  I’m not much bothered, but several people do find the absence
troubling.

2. Good luck on a DD glossary.  It maybe could be done via the Wikipedia
process (thanks to Filia and Nico for that suggestion).  But.... it may
be difficult to get agreement on all definitions.  We might have to
accept that some words may have several definitions (just as words in a
dictionary may have more than one meaning).

Mark Antell

PS.  Hope we're all having fun.