|
|
|
|
OVERVIEW
|
|
Throughout history, countless individuals,
groups, and organizations of all kinds have been
working toward improving the human condition and
the state of the world. From the ancient
philosophers and prophets to the miracles of
modern medicine, men and women of vision have
inspired, uplifted, and healed us.
Though the growth of knowledge and discovery
through the ages has been slow and sometimes
even negative, the pace has increased steadily,
particularly over the last few centuries. But
the last 100 years have seen an exponential
explosion of learning and development accelerate
in a kind of frenzy across the globe. The world
in the past century has been subjected to a
drastic rate of change unlike any other period
in recorded history.
While many astounding discoveries and
technological advances have been of great
benefit, there are widespread concerns about the
real and potential consequences of many of these
changes. Some see the earth and its inhabitants
as teetering and hanging in a delicate and
deadly balance, face to face with a crisis that
may be spiraling dangerously out of control.
Fortunately, there are worldwide efforts working
to deal with the problems, not only for the sake
of humanity, but for all life, and the stability
of the planet that sustains it. Many groups and
individuals are already working hard all over
the world, providing vital services and making
valuable contributions in a multitude of areas.
The Ideal World Foundation does not seek to take
over any of these efforts, or even to gather
them under one letter head. We do not wish to
climb onto anyones bandwagon, or to absorb any
of the credit these folks deserve. Rather, we
are simply interested in helping them in any way
possible to continue their work, and to continue
to grow and develop as effective efforts toward
a better world.
It could be said that the Ideal World Foundation
is not necessary, or even practical in being so
broad with its objectives. Groups like the
Cancer Foundation or the National Heart
Foundation, for example, deal with specific
concerns and are effective by being focused in
this way.
But a key aim of IWF will be to assist the
development of a global network, linking up
wherever possible the diverse endeavors being
undertaken worldwide. Hopefully this will help
to develop an even more coordinated
international effort, joining common forces to
work hand in hand toward common goals.
John Lennon once wrote,
there are no problems,
only solutions. Now theres a positive
statement. While it may or may not be entirely
true, solutions often do exist that for some
reason arent being implemented where and when
they are needed. So we will also be seeking to
bring problems and solutions together wherever
we can.
The Ideal World Foundation is not a religion of
any kind. Nevertheless, we would welcome the
assistance of any higher power or supernatural
forces or beings with whom our purposes are
aligned. We'd like to make it clear the IWF does
not align itself with any particular spiritual
or religious tradition or with any particular
political persuasion. We do however intend to be
open to and to encourage an across all lines
cooperation between groups and individuals of
every belief and persuasion in order that we
might set aside our differences and work
together for the common good.
There are those who see the world around us as a
frightening and dangerous place, a planet in
crisis, teetering in chaos toward destruction.
But others look at them and see only harbingers
of doom and are weary of their doomsday banner
with its long and tedious tradition. Let's face
it, the doomsday flag has been flapping in the
breeze for millennia. Maybe it's time to take it
down and try something else on for size.
Perhaps a more positive outlook would be to see
our generation as a fantastic and exciting phase
in the growth and evolution of life; a
challenging adventure to me met with optimism
and enthusiasm, like a race car driver speeding
to the edge of his capacity, to the limit of
traction and control.
Is it possible that the vast myriad of different,
often opposing points of view could ever exist
together in one world, and for that world to
approach anything resembling an ideal? An ideal
world sounds like an unrealistic ambition doesnt
it? Or does it? Or does it matter?
Does it matter that it sounds impossible, that
it seems way out of reach? Is it not true that
one of the main things that keeps us from
succeeding at any endeavor in life is the fear
of failure? A fear that often immobilizes us to
the point that we never even try? Is then the
belief that something is impossible not in fact
a self fulfilling prophecy?
A fundamental principle of IWF will be to try
not to worry about how far away our imagined
ideal may seem. Instead let's focus on whatever
small steps we can take today to move in that
direction, and that is all we are concerned with.
Occasionally we can look up and check our course,
to be sure we're headed in the right direction,
and that is really the purpose of our envisioned
ideal. It's just a point on the horizon that we
navigate by, that's all. The beauty of it is,
though, that it's something we can work toward
now, in this life, in the world we all share.
This Charter outlines the unique and dynamic
approach by which IWF will seek to contribute to
the well being of our planet. Bear in mind this
is an ongoing, open source document that will
grow and evolve according to the evolving vision
of IWF members. The Charter you are reading,
along with every other IWF document is but a
draft, never fixed in stone. Never to be
inflexible or entrenched in dogma, always open
to new ideas and suggestions. This is the first
founding principle behind the Ideal World
Foundation.
|
|
|
STRUCTURES AND PRINCIPLES
|
Return to Top
|
|
The whole thing can be summed up like this: We
imagine an ideal then do what we can to make it
happen. That's the whole thrust of the
organization in a nutshell. The mechanics and
logistics we employ all center in some way
around this theme. This part of the charter will
take a look at just what those mechanics and
logistics are.
The very first founding principle of IWF is that
nothing is set in stone, including the words you're
reading. Every aspect of the organization, from
its name, logo and vision statement to every
last word of the charter to the color scheme of
a web page and so on, is fluid and subject to
the input and feedback of all IWF members.
Having said that, however, I expect most of our
founding structures will quickly solidify as we
build on them and become comfortable working on
those foundations. But the point is, no matter
what it is, we can decide to do it better or
different at any time.
In practice, what this means is that any IWF
member should feel free to put forward any idea
they may have at any time about anything. If you
think you have an idea for better wording for
sentence 3, paragraph 2 of the vision statement,
even if it's a single word, we wanna know about
it. Hell, you can even challenge this very
principle I'm talking about if you want. If you
have a suggestion, please, make it. The first
founding principle of IWF is to guarantee that
you will be heard.
|
|
VOTING
|
Return to Top
|
|
The details of how this process will play out
have yet to be worked out, but here's what we
have at this time (originally written
05.23.2006).
Depending on what happens with pcW28 (see
Proposed Credo page), we're looking at some
variation on the democratic process. Ideally
unanimous agreement would be required to vote
something in, or similarly to make a change.
However, if that proves impractical, here are
some suggestions as to what direction we may
want to go:
First we try a "jury"
principle in order to bring a structure into
being, where all current members must consent.
Initially, while our membership is just small,
this shouldn't be a problem, so we can proceed
to operate on the basis that a consensus will be
required to put a structure into place, such as,
for example, a working vision statement (a draft
of which was voted in by existing members on
10.24.2006). However, when it was just Mike and
I, we agreed that we will not vote in any actual
Credo until we have established a membership of
around 100. The reason for this is that because
the jury principle will be employed in order to
change or challenge an existing structure, he
and I felt we'd be "stacking the deck" by voting
in credo that it would then be very difficult to
challenge later by consensus if you can see our
point.
I've been toying with the mechanics of this in
my head and admittedly, as I've said, it needs
to be ironed out. And only the functionality of
using it will ultimately guide us to the optimum
solution. The objective is unanimity. Ideally,
every IWF member should be able to put their "seal
of approval" on every aspect of the organization.
In practice, though, once we have, say, 1000
members, I can see the possibility of nothing
ever getting done. Se we may need to temper that
ideal for practical purposes.
One solution may be to have "representatives"
who are voted in to a "congress" or something,
for the purposes of breaking a deadlock. Call it
"The Board of Imagineers"? This board would be
voted in by a typical democratic process, then a
decision by the board could require unanimous
consensus from the board itself, as opposed to
the entire IWF membership. This function could
be implemented when the broader IWF membership
becomes deadlocked.
Voting should
be 100% transparent. Everyone should know how,
and more importantly,
why
other members voted as they did.
So, we have a vote on an item taken by the broad
membership requiring unanimous consensus. The
procedure is, after a vote, the minority who
have taken a position contrary to the popular
vote must be prepared to discuss their position
and offer rational explanation. Any individual
unable or unwilling to satisfy this requirement
will have their vote voided.
This is essentially a deliberating phase, where
members freely exchange ideas. The objective at
ALL times must be to reach consensus, NOT to
cling stubbornly to your position, but to bring
an open mind to the table. Drill past
superficial squabbles to the underlying bedrock
of mutual understanding and respect.
If 3 votes fail to
reach consensus in the broad IWF membership, the
item goes to the (arbitrating) panel of reps.
The panel then has 3 votes to reach consensus
before the item is shelved. The "shelf" is
revisited periodically and items are re-assessed
by the panel and decisions are made to re-open
debate on an item or not.
The theory is that consensus does exist, whether
we are able to arrive there today or not (this
is the underlying principle behind pcW28). If we
can't find it today, maybe we'll find it
tomorrow or next year, but never give up. Shelve
things if we must and move on, but never throw
them out. Unless of course there's unanimous
consensus to do so. :)
So that's how IWF structures, Credo included,
are created, by a process of voting and debate.
(The structure of the debating process itself
will be covered later in the charter). Then the
approach to challenge or pull down and existing
structure or credo works similarly. Here are
some considerations re: the logistics of that
process...
|
|
MOUNTING A CHALLENGE
|
Return to Top
|
|
First of all, full scale debate cannot ensue as
a consequence of any challenge a person wants to
put forward. That would be impractical. So there
must be a system in place where a certain amount
of consensus must be reached by a number of
members regarding an item in order for an
official challenge to be mounted. (The specifics
of that degree of consensus has yet to be
decided, but I'd think a reasonable number
should required to mount a challenge)
In the case of Credo, for example, once the
criteria for a legitimate challenge has been met,
the item is then brought to the table for
official discussion. The objective at this point
is to determine whether a credo should be pulled
down and edited or changed in any way. The
decision to pull down a credo requires the same
unanimous consensus as voting it in did. So to
bring a legitimate challenge to the table only
requires x amount of support, but for that
challenge to result in a credo being "suspended
from duty" as it were, unanimity by the same
criteria as the primary voting process is
required. Until that time, a credo remains in
place despite any ongoing challenge. So you can
see why it would be irresponsible for Mike and
I, or any small group of us, to vote in a bunch
of credo and subject future membership to these
requirements to mount challenges in order to
have their say. By waiting we hope to see a
Credo developed by a diverse membership that
will stand strong over time and be less likely
to fall to such challenges.
|
|
CREDO
|
Return to Top
|
|
A word or two
on Credo itself. Basically, Credo is our
imagined ideal. The beauty of Credo is that it
is not subject to limitation except those
limitations implied by the definition of the
word Ideal
itself. Credo, therefore, can be the best our
collective imaginations are capable of. We can
paint as beautiful a picture as we like, or
don't like, it's up to us. Who knows, we may end
up painting the picture we already have in
reality, but I kind of doubt it. I think we can
do alot better than we are, don't you?
Anyway, Credo
is where we can take our minds out for a spin,
dream up whatever kind of world we want. As I
said, the only limitation to consider is that
inherent to the definition of the word
Ideal
itself...
|
|
|
ideal (aidiəl)
adj. of or relating to a highly desirable and
possible
state of affairs.
|
|
|
|
possible
(posibl) adj. 1. capable of existing, taking
place, or proving true without contravention of
any natural law. 2. capable of being achieved.
|
|
|
|
-The Collins
Concise Dictionary
|
|
|
So the only real obstacle I can see in these
definitions is that of "any natural law". So we're
free to create any imaginable credo within the
confines of the laws of nature. I imagine that
point will spark some full on debate! :)
As a suggestion,
perhaps we can have a branch of IWF where that
rule is lifted, just for fun. But for legitimate
IWF Credo, the above definitions apply, and to
be honest, that pretty much leaves the door wide
open in my mind. Hell, we can aim for pretty
much anything, so long as we don't want to defy
gravity, and I can live with that (for now :).
So that's Credo.
|
|
DISCUSSION BOARDS
|
Return to Top
|
|
Thoughts regarding the debating process we could
employ day to day within IWF are developing
along these lines:
We have
essentially two structures in place on the IWF
Discussion Boards: There's the "main table" and
there are "peripherals".
The "main table" is called The Boardroom, and
this is where the center of the organizations
attention will ultimately be at any given time.
Right now (11.02.2006) the Boardroom is closed
pending a formal commencement of the IWF
debating process. Once we open officially the
Boardroom will be the "main table" of discussion
for the organization.
At any given time, one issue or topic will be "on
the table". What that issue will be, will be
decided also at the main table during a
scheduling process that will occur periodically.
This scheduling process will be decided on by
the same criteria by which all IWF decisions are
reached. (As stated earlier, unanimity is the
stated aim, pending trial and error and the
likely tempering with some democratic system.)
As for how discussions will be structured at the
main table, I've given this alot of thought.
Initially, I suppose a pretty free approach may
suffice, where whoever is inclined to say
something just says it. This might be OK while
IWF membership is small. But I'm projecting
forward to a point in time where, say we have a
thousand or more members, it may be impractical
to have an open forum approach to the main table.
Imagine hundreds of people all making entries at
once, it would be chaos.
So I've sketched out this rough idea as a
possible approach: What we have are "peripheral"
tables to the main table. Each peripheral can
have a manageable number of individuals
participating and there can be any number of
peripherals.
The activities in peripherals can go in any
direction the group sees fit to go. There are no
real rules as to content or topic, unless the
group agrees to one. The point being,
peripherals are pretty much a totally free forum
environment, bound only by the behavioral
guidelines set out in this charter.
Just some
suggestions regarding peripherals that can be
decided upon at some point: Perhaps whoever
starts a peripheral, or whoever opens the thread,
is the spokesman for the peripheral. That person
can make the decision, for example, to limit the
number of participants to that peripheral if it
starts to get out of hand. I suppose if 2 people
want to have a "one on one" they could do that
too. Anyone who wants to can look in, but not
necessarily post there.
So in the peripherals, IWF members can debate
their asses off with anyone and everyone about
anything and everything. But ultimately, the
objective will be to contribute to the primary,
or the main table.
And at the heart
of our debating process is this principle:
Whether you get heard is not a function of how
loud or flamboyant your are or your stage
presence or your entertainment value. It's all
about the content, and that should hold true for
even the quietest little voice over in the
corner, not just the loudest mouth with the
white knuckled grip on the podium.
This is the fundamental challenge of the IWF
debating model, to find a way to amplify the
quietest voice if it has something of value to
say. So how do we do that? Well, to be honest,
I'm not sure. I know how easy it is for a quiet
voice to go unnoticed. I have an idea, though,
that it will come down to IWF members simply
being mindful of this ethic and trying to
remember to behave this way. I mean, I'm putting
it forward that we make this official IWF policy,
but in the day to day realities of heated
discussion and debate, only the people
participating can make it happen.
Apart from that, however, I'd like to see
structures in place that encourage this ethic to
work. For example, we can have an IWF Debate
Coordinator (DC) whose role is to be on the look
out for good ideas that may emerge in some
obscure peripheral.
|
|
DEBATE COORDINATOR
|
Return to Top
|
|
I doubt we'll ever be able to have a Debate
Coordinator that can efficiently scrutinize
every word of every discussion that ever takes
place on the IWF boards. So again, alot of the
responsibility will fall back on the members
themselves who are participating in any given
peripheral. Still, to the best of their ability
it will be the responsibility of the DC to see
to it that every good and relevant idea makes it
to the main table. That's the role and purpose
of the DC. On the one hand, the DC tries to be
on the lookout for any valuable and relevant
contribution, on the other, it is up to members
themselves to bring their case to the DC.
With regard to the
DC's first priority, the way I'm seeing the
logistics at this time (around June 2006) are as
follows: At any given time we will have one issue being
debated at the primary discussion table.
Simultaneously we will have any number of
peripherals coming at it from every angle
imaginable. The goal of the DC is to make sure
that all relevant points of view coming out of
the periphery are heard at the main table. There
will be some discretion involved on the part of
the DC to weigh up what contributions should be
tabled at the primary, but the general rule is
that the DC just coordinates rather than
exercising value judgment.
My proposal is that any given peripheral may
bring a proposed submission to the DC at any
time. Presumably there will be a structured
manner in which every contribution to the
primary is entered. The candidates themselves
who may be the key figures debating at the main
table at any given time would presumably have
priority in terms of the sequence of entries.
Those candidates themselves would be making
contributions over a given period of time
subject to the guidelines mentioned under the
section below, Scheduled Debates, i.e., say 1-3
days with extensions by application between
entries.
Then in the context of an orderly presentation
of the ongoing entries of the key candidates of
the debate, the contributions put forward by the
peripherals would also be presented.
The structure of a
given entry would presumably have some
guidelines in terms of the number of words
allowed, etc. Those guidelines would also,
presumably, be somewhat flexible by application.
As to the criteria by which the DC would select
a submission from the periphery to be tabled at
the primary, as stated, obviously some
discretion would come into it, as to the
relevance of the content, etc. Say for example a
peripheral approaches the DC with a proposed
contribution. Presumably all parties are
following the primary closely, so the likelihood
is that any proposed contribution would be
somehow directly related to the issue on the
main table.
So we can probably assume that is a given. There
will undoubtedly be cases, though, where a
peripheral is way out in left field on an issue,
so to speak, but at least in their minds they
have something of value to contribute at the
main table. It will be up to a good DC to weigh
this up in a fair and open minded way.
In the event that
more than one periphery brings similar points to
the DC at the same time, the DC can make them
aware of each other and offer them the option of
either teaming up to summarize their submission
or if they choose to remain independent, the DC
would then exercise discretion in choosing
either or both of their submissions as entries
to the primary.
So the DC's
first priority is to bring relevant
contributions from the periphery to the main
table that pertain to the issue that is on the
main table at that point in time. A secondary
role of the DC is to be aware of relevant
material that may be of interest to the primary
at any
point in time, even if not necessarily in the
context of the presently tabled issue. In that
event, the DC needs to employ a process whereby
a relevant point is noted and kept for reference
at the appropriate time when the issue to which
it pertains is brought to the main table. This
should not be left to the conscientiousness of
members to remember, but a systematic method
should be put in place. Presumably a schedule of
issues due to be tabled should be available and
a relevant peripheral can be tagged to an issue
for consideration at the appropriate time.
When a peripheral approaches the DC with an idea,
if the peripheral already has a spokesman, the
DC can ask that spokesman to prepare a clearly
constructed submission summing up the entry that
the peripheral would like to submit to the
primary. If there is no spokesman, the
peripheral can choose one or the DC can appoint
one. Or the peripheral can request no one
spokesman be appointed if they wish. As a rule,
however, the person who begins a thread will
probably be the spokesman for that peripheral.
Some of these logistics have yet to be worked
out. In any case, their proposed submission (ps)
must be prepared and agreed upon by the
peripheral group and submitted to the DC.
The DC will assess a proposed submission only in
terms of it's relevance to the issue at hand and
it's unique input, that is to say, content that
has not already been looked at. The DC is NOT to
make value judgments as to what point of view is
being put forward, or weigh in any
considerations as to how a contribution supports
or does not support a particular position. In
that sense, the DC is to be entirely impartial.
The DC is only there to weed out
non-constructive content. For the most part, the
DC's role is just to coordinate an orderly
process whereby peripherals can make their
voices heard at the main table. I anticipate the
decision to deny a particular submission access
to the primary will be relatively rare, and is
not a decision the DC should take lightly.
In the event a ps is denied, the DC should
provide a rational explanation. If the
peripheral still feels their ps has merit, there
should be an avenue of appeal. I would suggest
that a first avenue of appeal would be back
directly to the DC. After a 2nd denial, if the
peripheral still feels inclined to push their
case, there would need to be an arbitration
panel (AP) to whom the peripheral would make an
appeal.
So there must be 2 denials by the DC before
appealing to the AP. Beyond that, I suppose an
appeal could be taken all the way to a board of
directors or to the EO's office or something. I
mean once we have all these structures in place
that is. I really don't expect this to be an
issue very often, if ever, but I'm just putting
forward this procedure so it is in place if it
is ever needed. The reason for having these
avenues available is as a safety measure to
ensure that every point of view is heard, and
that none are ever easily overlooked or
dismissed.
For the most part, the DC should be bending over
backwards to make sure everyone gets their say.
All this will iron itself out in practice over
time, I have no doubt.
The thing is, looking forward to a point in time
when there may be alot of people participating,
imagine hundreds of peripherals hard at work,
putting forward proposed submissions by the
dozen. We'll need a pretty good DC in place to
coordinate it all.
So, summing up the whole role and concept of a
Debate Coordinator, the idea is that any number
of people can participate in a single, focused
debate without having chaos, by the use of
peripherals and a primary. The primary is the
main table of discussion where a very structured
and orderly procedure is implemented by which
proposed submissions and entries from key
participants are tabled.
The peripherals are a free forum format where
fully open discussion takes place between
manageable groups of individuals. Any number of
peripherals can operate at once, putting forward
their proposed submissions to the DC for orderly
entry at the main table. That pretty much sums
up this aspect of the debating process.
|
|
DEBATING MODEL
|
Return to Top
|
|
I've spent alot of time thinking about this and
here is what I have at this time (06.13.2006).
The main thing I'd
like to see removed from the traditional
debating process as I understand it, is what I
perceive to be inherent limitations to the
fundamental effectiveness of the process. It
seems to me that the structure of the
traditional debating process is more about "winning"
that about any real understanding of the issues
at hand. It's more of a verbal boxing match than
anything else.
I'd like to see a debating model developed where
the whole us vs them element is eliminated. I'd
like to see a debating model built around the
principle that we're all on the same team and
our opponent is ignorance itself. The goal is to
understand each other, not to ridicule and
demean or discredit or character assassinate
anyone who challenges or opposes our cherished
views.
The problem
with debating in general, or
a
problem, is the problem of words themselves.
Words are a fantastic medium on one hand, but on
another hand they are very crude and fraught
with the potential pitfall of misunderstanding (typing
that last sentence, my fingers got out of
alignment with the keys and when I looked at the
screen it was just gibberish - which,
coincidentally, happens to be the point of the
sentence :) "We tried to talk it over, but the
words got in the way..." That line from the
George Benson classic pretty much sums it up.
But unfortunately, words are all we have to work
with at this point in time, at least when it
comes to any kind of meaningful exchange of
ideas between minds. All we can do is do our
best to form our thoughts into these crude
shapes and syllables and send them off like the
ambassadors of our minds and hope they do us
justice.
But we must remember that at best, all those
words can do is offer the mind that receives
them a glimpse, a dim reflection of the thought
behind them.
So the point is,
we must acknowledge that from the outset we face
the challenge of words as being our only means
of an intellectual exchange of ideas. And
instead of using that obstacle against one
another, we need to unite in our efforts to
overcome this challenge as best we can. Perhaps
one day we will learn to rise beyond words to
communicate. Until then we need to cooperate,
not compete in order to get the most out of this
crude tool.
the thing is, one
aim of our debating process is to ultimately
create Credo, which itself will be formed out of
words.
Fortunately, crude though they are, words are
capable of conveying a great deal of meaning.
Hell, our entire civilization is built around
principles encapsulated in well crafted and well
worn sets of words. Our laws, constitutions,
song lyrics, cherished scriptures; all words.
So despite their limitations, I'm optimistic we
can achieve alot communicating with words. I
just thought it worth pointing out the inherent
limitations words themselves will ultimately
pose to any debating structure we develop, so
perhaps we can bear that in mind as we proceed.
So we have the
inherent limitation of words themselves, which
we're kind of stuck with, but at least we can
work together to get past it. But the win/lose
thing, that we can get rid of altogether I
believe.
I propose we adopt the principle of cooperative
effort as opposed to competition in our approach
to debating. I say this as something I'd like to
see put in place as a cornerstone IWF policy. So
that is my first proposal with regard to our
debating process.
Next, I'd like to see the time frame limitations
removed. Traditional debates occur over a very
limited time frame, both in terms of duration of
a response and the time available to calculate a
response. The thing is, we can all relate to the
scenario where we find ourselves thinking in
hindsight, "I wish I'd have thought to say this
or that" after a discussion or argument.
Traditional debates are structured in such a way
that "performance on the day", or more to the
point, in the "heat of the moment" win the
contest. I suppose removing win/lose from the
debating model will change this, but it also
seems to be a time frame issue to me.
The best point of view someone is capable of "on
the day" or "in the heat of battle:" is not
necessarily the strongest point of view possible.
And what we want to produce as a consequence of
our debates is the absolute, utmost, strongest
perspective that can be collectively crafted
using words, full stop. Not within the confines
of a 2 minute window of time on a given day, but
ever. Outside the confines of ANY time frame.
How these "values" will implement in practice, I
suppose, will only bear out in practice, over
time. Right now I'm just supposing, perhaps it
could work this way or that way. But only trial
and error will tell. In the meantime, here are
some more thoughts on this...
I expect we will
want to have some scheduled debates between
prominent individuals on occasion where a time
frame will be inevitable. I can envisage any
number of scenarios being employed, though.
Perhaps we could
have a "traditional' debate on a given day over
2 hours or whatever, between a couple prominent
scientists or authors or what have you. Followed
by an ongoing debate amongst IWF membership,
leading to some kind of structured exchange
between the prominent figures over a period of
time, including input from the IWF membership.
So a 2 hour traditional debate is just one event
in an ongoing process, as it were.
We could also set
up debates between prominent figures that occur
over longer time frames, say weeks or even
months, using an online format. We could have
rules allowing periods of x number of days
between entries, perhaps limiting entries to x
number of words, and perhaps allowing links to
external sources or whatever.
Then if a
participant requires longer than the provided
time to prepare an entry, a request for an
extension could be allowed. I would suggest that
extensions be granted for legitimate reasons
only, say to allow for additional research or
whatever, but wary of people just "not getting
around to it".
The whole point of such an approach to a debate
is to remove the limitation of time and "on the
day" performance as being any kind of factor in
the outcome. We want to give a participant every
opportunity to put forward as well thought out
an argument as they are capable, full stop. This
is of course referring to suggestions regarding
ways we could structure specific, arranged
debates between particular individuals as
opposed to ongoing exchanges between IWF members
in general.
Summing up the proposed structure of the IWF
debating model (pending further research), by
use of an online forum, traditional time
constraints are eliminated and a debate is able
to occur over any kind of time frame, presumably
days, rather than the traditional couple hours.
The IWF ethic is to completely eliminate the "on
the spot performance" component from our
debating model, and to embrace a spirit of
cooperative effort and NOT competition.
|
|
SOAPBOX MODEL
|
Return to Top
|
|
Another proposed debating model we might try is
the "real time soapbox" model that could work as
follows:
In an online forum
using voice streaming software, individuals cue
up for access to the "soapbox" where they can
state their point of view. There can be totally
open forum podiums and structured topic
situations.
Each individual can have a window of time
available, say 2 minutes, to make their
statement. On the screen, listeners can see a
visual representation of the following data:
time remaining for current speaker & level of
listener support for current speaker. The "listener
support meter" can reflect the response a
speaker is getting, that can be measured by some
kind of mechanism, say an icon on the screen
when clicked will register a listeners approval
or support, and another icon when clicked can
register listener disapproval. When the listener
support meter goes above a certain level, the
speakers time is automatically extended. On the
other hand, if the disapproval level goes past a
given point, the speakers time is immediately
terminated. So if listeners are into what
someone is saying, they could presumably talk
all day. If not, they would be shut down after 2
minutes or even sooner if listener disapproval
is high enough.
This debating model could be expanded to include
Q & A from listeners to given speakers. Just a
thought.
|
|
BLACK HOLES
|
Return to Top
|
|
A black hole for our purposes is an intellectual
twilight zone. This is what we will call a topic
if it enters into an interminable
rationalization loop. When this happens, we
recognize that we're just going around in
circles and a black hole flag is pinned to the
thread, and the topic is shelved.
It's important to
be on the look out for threads that become black
holes. They will generally develop either when
ego or emotion overrides reason or when words
themselves break down, or when logic and
rationalization just cave in upon themselves in
a hopeless feedback loop. This will happen from
time to time despite our best efforts.
The procedure with a black hole will be firstly
that someone must propose that a thread has
become a black hole, or perhaps a black hole
warning can be issued at a certain point, and
participants may try to steer the train of
though away from the black hole. In order for a
thread or topic to be black hole flagged a poll
must be taken and there must be a consensus that
it has indeed become a black hole.
At that point the item is "shelved" for future
reference. There will be a procedure in place by
which shelved items are revisited periodically.
Perhaps a fresh perspective at a later date will
snap the topic out of the black hole, and the
item can be resolved.
|
|
RULES AND POLICY
|
Return to Top
|
I haven't given alot of thought to this one,
so it's wide open. In fact, I've got nothing
as of this moment. (11.03.2006) which isn't
surprising, as I'm really not a rules and
regulations kind of guy... But I anticipate
this section will come into play, so I'm
putting it here for discussion and
development.
|
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Return to Top
|
|
With regard to membership, all I have at this
point (11.03.2006) it as follows:
At this point,
membership to the Online Community forums is by
default an IWF membership. That may change. To
be discussed. I can see a situation where people
may wish to join the forums without joining IWF
outright. So perhaps joining the organization
can be a separate process at some point. Then
again, maybe not. We'll see. (this has changed,
see below)
Entry 1.13.07: The
thinking as of this point in time is that
membership to the forums is NOT iwf membership
by default. Again, this all may change, but at
present we're looking for 100 founding members
and while anyone can join the forums, there are
some prerequisites to becoming a founding member.
If you're reading this then you probably know
that reading through the iwf web pages and
committing to an hour a week are required for
iwf membership, at least to become one of the
first 100 founding members. But membership to
the forums is still open to anyone at all.
One suggestion I have with membership is that we
propose annual IWF Membership dues but make it
entirely optional. This too will need to be
discussed.
|
|
FINANCES
|
Return to Top
|
I am of a strong belief that our accounting
process should be 100% transparent even to
the extent that all our financial records
are fully accessible to anyone who wants to
see them. I'm thinking of having a financial
records or accounting page on the site where
every cent coming in and going out is
accounted for down to the last cent. All
contributors can see their contribution
listed in the credit section either by name
or by number, their choice. And every cent
we spend is listed in the debit section.
We may need some advice on the safety or
security of doing something like this, so at
this point this is just a suggestion open
for discussion.
As for expenditures, I propose that once we
do have any kind of budget in place, no
individual person has access to it. I
propose that all spending be approved by at
least 2 administrative staff and that any
expenditure over a certain amount require
the approval of a board of directors. To be
discussed.
|
|
CONTRIBUTIONS
|
Return to Top
|
A founding principle with regard to
financial contributions is that we never
make public appeals for money, ever. This is
a proposal I feel strongly about. The
general public is so bombarded by requests
for their donation dollar, the last thing I
think we should ever do is to climb on that
bandwagon. We need to come up with our own
unique strategy for fund raising. This is a
topic that can also be discussed at length.
One comment I'll add here though, is that I
anticipate our objectives to be far more
focused on enlisting volunteers than asking
folks for their money. Much of the work of
IWF will require volunteers who are able to
contribute their time and energy more than
their money. To be discussed.
Once we are in a position to be able to
accept online contributions, we will need to
take every step possible to ensure security
and privacy to the process. Online fraud is
epidemic. This will probably require some
professional assistance.
|
|
CREDOMETRY
|
Return to Top
|
|
Credometry is a mathematical principle developed
by mathematician and philosopher Arloe Poe. The
basic formula of credometry is one which serves
to calculate existing conditions against the
credometric ideal to produce a numeric index
which essentially indicates where real world
conditions stand relative to our stated ideal.
This is a useful function in that it provides a
measurable numeric figure that can be calculated
and graphed over time as a reference. It is
going to be primarily useful as a yard stick by
which we can measure our progress as the years
go by.
The Credometric Index (ci) can be calculated for
a specific credo as well as for all credo
cumulatively. The ci will probably be expressed
as a percentage. For example, a ci of 85% would
be telling us that we're 85% of the way toward
reaching our stated ideal. 100% is a Gold CSR
and we break out the champagne.
The details of the
formula of Credometry will be published to the
site in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
