Merger Referendum

[Robert Walpole]

Gwyn,

1. I am not, nor have I been, In a very long time, an "AA leader".

2. I therefore never expected the CDS to self-dissolve and hand over its power to me. But if that is your and your friends' perception of what is going on, that clearly explains your and your friends' actions. Indeed, that perception is most likely the central underlying problem in this entire dispute.

3. This is my personal view of events and attitudes of various individuals. It doesn't mean these individuals do indeed agree with my point of view. Many will problably disagree in part or totally. But it is a point of view that brings a different perspective on events, and so may (or may not) explain them better.

4. I never assumed ownership, or defended, the current system of AA governance. In fact, i clearly stated that AA had evolved along very different lines from my original vision, some of wich I liked, some of which I didn't. I saw no point in engaging in a detailed analysis of these, since my governance project, the Al-Andalus Caliphate Project, died a long time ago, after my departure from SL.

5. I was not arguing in favour of the current merger, nor against it. I am neither an AA or CDS citizen, have no interest either way and no standing to give an opinion. Yes, I did say I was against the original merger and I would not suppport the continuation of the merger were I to have a voice now, but that is not what my argument was all about. My argument tried to look at the underlying reasons why you and your friends now are so very much against continuing the merger, after you originally supported it. That is a very different matter. In any case, I never ever meant or implied the following statement, which you falsely try to impute to me:

What you mean is, "if the CDS would wish to abolish its institutions, forfeit the values of democracy and adopt a different model of organisation to further foster community I would support the merger".

6. I think that now, things are very clear. You and your friends think, as you stated, that the AA leadership expected CDS to self-dissolve and hand over CDS governance and finances to the AA leadership, because, in your words, the latter believes they are so much better at governing than you. You could not have been clearer than this. Thank you. This is indeed the crux of the matter. You and your friends perceive the current situation as a struggle to the death of "us" versus "them": a CDS leadership fighting to survive against an attempted takeover attempt by an AA leadership structure, trying to replace your democracy with some kind of semi-dictatorial ad-hockery. Further, you think that this AA leadership is "going legal" on you, by using the merger agreement to trump what you call "the will of the people". Hence your call for a referendum and your refusal to comply with the terms of the merger agreement. Again, thank you for clearly spelling out the true underlying reasons for your and your friends' behaviour and reasons why you have not respected the terms of the merger agreement:

I object, Your Honour. What you mean is: "we, the former AA community leaders, expected that the CDS would self-dissolve its government, adopt a tribal adhocracy as the New Order, and faithfully hand the sims — and the tier collected in them — to us, because we're so much better at managing ourselves". When those expectations failed, the next step was to "get legal" — putting agreements above the will of the people. And, of course, respect for diversity goes both ways — if the next step of the CDS is to abolish self-government through representative democracy and adopt tribal adhocracy instead, that's fine, if a majority of citizens wish it that way. So far, the attempts to do that did not succeed. I'm sure that you weren't expecting the CDS simply to give up representative democracy without a fair fight!

7. In fact, this is exactly the outcome you and your friends fear most, because the upcoming CDS elections might well elect enough RA members in a 13-member RA to push though what you describe as the "adoption of tribal adhocracy by means of representative democracy", against which you clearly could not stand without being internally inconsistent and violating your very own, democratic principles. Your and your friends' solution is simple: remove the threat which the many dozens of additional AA voters bring to established CDS power structures by forcing through the CDS / AA demerger, reduce again RA numbers to levels more easily liable to be controlled by you and your friends, particularly (but not only) in the CSDF, and once and for all remove the threat of what you consider to be nothing short of an attempted putch of the AA leaders by the (mis)use of your own, democratic structures of election and governance and your unavoidable need to respect such a possible election outcome, were it to occur, lest you appear internally insconsistent with your own democratic principles. Clearly, though, as you so aptly stated, you have no intention to let this happen "without a fight".

8. It is not up to me, a complete outsider, to draw any conclusions out of this. My only purpose was to help clarify the above. Which I think I suceeded in great part. It is now up to all of you, CDS and AA citizens, to really understand what you said and decide how to deal with this and where to go from there.

9.

Since early 2005 I've desperately tried to get replaced. Every election we're short of representatives willing to serve. Every election I have the same old discussion and have to finally admit that there is no other way but to be willing to serve...

I realise its oh such a hard lot to be so indispensable as to just have to stand for one or the other of CDS's key governmental positions - RA or SC - for six years running; but you must agree with me that it really looks pretty bad for you and your friends to keep going on and on and on because you feel so indispensable and renominate yourselves under a party system where individuals voted on party lists, not individual names. Not quite the pure democracy you so vehemently defend, is it? Especially when, as SC leader, you decided on RA election rules - who could stand as RA candidate or not -, then based on that very ruling, you immediately stood down from the SC and got elected to the RA. Such a blatant conflict of interest would not be tolerated in any democracy worth its salt. In doing so, you sadly contributed in undermining the legitimacy and impartiality of your own system of governance. But this is just my opinion. I speak for no one else.

10.

You know perfectly well that the reason [the Justice Bill] was revoked is because it placed the power to arbitrarily condemn anyone in the CDS in the hands of a single person that was not subject to the principles of democratic rotativity and self-placed himself in that role...

Well yes, Gwyn, any democracy worth its salt has three independent branches of government: legislative, executive, and judiciary. This never has been the case in CDS:

a) Citizens only indirectly elected the RA members, by selecting party lists. Party bosses and members decided who actually occupied these seats. How many times where there, after elections, empty party RA seats which had to be filled ex post facto by Party grandees?
b) These RA members, the names of many of which did not even figure on election ballots, then got to elect the Chancellor.
c) These very same members then got to confirm nominations to the SC.
d) The SC was, and remained, the only institutional organ of the CDS autorised and capable of resolving disputes in the CDS - including, and especially, constitutional ones.

Not only was there no separation of powers, but to the contrary, all essential power belonged, in the end, to unelected party bosses who controlled RA nominations and, through them, all legislation, as well as the election of the Chancellor and the composition of the SC. This is only a democracy according to stalinist standards of democratic centralism and virtual merger between party and governmental structures. Note: although citizens were indeed allowed to introduce legislation, it was still RA members who got to change, amend, and vote on such legislation, ultimately transforming such Bills into whatever they wanted these bills to be - or not to be. That is the rub...

11. When you yourselves recognised that there was something deeply wrong with this, in the wake of the Ulrika episode, you mandated a rl barrister who was willing to devote consideralble time and effort towards this goal, to devise a truly independent judiciary and take it out of the political arena. He did exactly as asked, and the RA ratified his work. Of course his system was overly complex, but it had the merit of setting up a truly independent judiciary, above control by the SC or the RA. That is what separation of powers is all about, Gwyn: the Juidiciary is most expressly NOT under control of the other branches of government which are elected democratically. In any case, even under this system, Supreme Court Justices could still be impeached and removed from office. What riled you and your friends is that you finally realised that a true separation of powers meant that you, in fact, would lose exclusive control of CDS institutions, forums, and dispute resolution procedures. In other words, you and your friends saw yourselves involved in yet another fight to the death of "us" versus "them" in which you perceived that a group rival to yours (this time, professional and elitist rl lawyes) was attempting to wrestle away power and control of CDS from you. Consequently, you did then what you are doing now. You reneged on your agreement, you reversed the duly enacted RA decision, did away with the independent judiciary that never even had the power to come into being (judiciary selection was on-going at the time), excluded th emerging judiciary from its RA-sanctioned role before it had even been fully selected or rendered a single decision, and reverted all judiciary and constitutional powers to the SC, such as it was.

12, Can we see a clear pattern here? Each time you and your friends, who so selflessly serve the CDS so very much against your will because no one else is willing to serve, is in danger of losing your traditional power and influence over CDS institutions and system of governance, you conveniently clothe yourselves in the mantle of "defenders of CDS institutions and democracy", transform it into a battle to the death between "us" and "them", and exclude, by any means necessary, the "rival group" from the existing CDS power structures, which are to be preserved at all costs and, since no one else is willing to run, reluctantly remain "stuck" in your oh-so-reluctant-to-serve hands. This happened with Ulrika; it happened with Ashcroft; it happened with me and CARE; it happened with Princess and NuCARE; and now it happens with what you perceive to be the AA leadership's attempt to disspolve CDS institutions and replace them with their own personnel and semi-dictatorial institutions. This is what my argument focused on and attempted to clarify. Thank you for your assistance in doing so. I think matters are crystal clear. It is up to CDS/AA citizens to draw their own conclusions. I have no other personal interest in this other than bringing some historical context and clarity in what is really the crux of the matter in the on-going power struggle, so that CDS and AA citizens be able to make informed decisions in upcoing votes on both the merger (if one is ever held) and CDS elections, as well as in any merger/demerger discussions and negotiations.

At this point, I will step out of this debate and return to my own preoccupations. I made the points I wanted to make and, as a non AA/CDS Citizen or Leader there is nothing left for me to say or do regarding any of these matters.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Well, yes, Michel, this time I have to agree with you on some points (not all, mind you!)

2. It's not "who" gets the dissolved CDS that is at stake (personally, once the CDS is dissolved, I don't care who picks it up), but the whole dissolution in itself. I would oppose it as strongly if Pat or Arria would propose handing the CDS over to them.

5. I'm happy that you don't support that, but I'm sorry that you're probably one of the few stating that publicly.

6. Exactly! BTW, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before; I certainly did say that in-world, but perhaps this was not clear on my other posts, and I apologise for that. Yes, I fundamentally believe you're quite right in those assertions.

7. I cannot speak for others, but if the democratically elected RA has a majority (or a super-majority) of members that votes to dissolve the CDS, in all legitimacy, I obviously won't oppose it. I would make a token protest appealing to the SC (before it gets dissolved as well) but leave it like that: the people are sovereign, and what they vote and decide is what I will abide to.

The "rush" of a lot of citizens who support that view doesn't worry me, either (again, I'm probably alone in that). In my mind, it's always the same thing: if a lot of citizens join the CDS, have a different way of seeing and thinking things, and, through a vote, express their opinion, I cannot oppose them. The CDS has to evolve and change to adapt to what the current view of its citizens is.

Also, I've learned my history. Once democracy is deposed democratically (as alluded before, it's democracy's most dangerous weakness), there is no turning back, except through revolution, which is something impossible to do in SL. So, yes, that would be a final and definitive change, and you'd get rid of me forever that way

My "fight" is just against accomplishing the same objective without elections, because, while the democratic system is in place, such an objective — overthrowing the government without popular support — is abhorrent to my eyes. Once the system is voted out, however, I would certainly not say anything further.

8. Thus my strong acceptance of Kas' proposal. It keeps both communities' best judgement of what a government should be, while allowing both to continue to collaborate and co-operate elsewhere (namely, on promotion, on events, on community-fostering, on building, and perhaps even in loaning money) and opens the possibility of other communities to join the "alliance" or "association" freely without having a Sword of Damocles hanging over their specific forms of government.

9. I'm not sure how things work out in your country, but out of my head, I don't remember any country (or even relatively large organisation where the board is elected by a vote of all members) where there aren't groups of citizens/members being elected as opposed to group-less individuals. Grouping, for politics as well as for communities, is just a natural way of similarly-aligned people to work together for the benefit of others. The ability to discard personal individualism and work together in a small group is a good training to do the same for larger groups. Nevertheless, I'm quite aware that this is hardly an universal belief, and that's why the CDS got rid of the requirement for candidates for the RA to be on a faction. You see, that's not "abolishment of government by authority", but exactly what I alluded before: citizens deciding, by a majority vote, what they feel to be better for themselves. I did obviously disagree publicly with that change, but that was before it was put to the vote. Now I will be happy to defend it as strongly as any other change made in the CDS because it is now the citizen's will, and I will stand by it. (If the citizens, in their majority, change their opinion again, I will respect that change once more).

And you can bring up your example of the "dancing chairs" as often as you wish because it doesn't change anything except probably that it remains true that the number of people willing to serve in the CDS government has, indeed, remained very low over time, no matter how much time passes. The time you alluded was a period where the SC had more than two regular members (which was something that took almost 2 years to happen; nobody wanted to serve on the SC) and all of a sudden there were, once again, too few candidates for all RA members. Someone had to step in, or we'd simply have a completely crippled government with not enough members for each of the roles; at every time we have a Chancellor election, I'm always desperate fearing that a day will come where we won't have a single candidate. At about the same time, it was seen by many that the SC is the "true seat of power" and was constraining both Executive and RA in their actions, so a reshuffling of power was a more balanced approach. It worked. The SC, since then, has had way more regular members, it meets regularly, but it's not seen as a "threat" any longer; instead, the RA was now seen as a threat. You can say this is a convenient excuse and it'll be impossible for me to change that opinion; but I can assure you that if we didn't chronically lack people willing to serve, I would never have done what I did. But perhaps I can ask you to think a bit about this. Why does the focus on the "threat of power" subtly shift when some people move to a specific governmental or quasi-governmental group? I wonder if Arria becomes the next secretary of the New Guild, and Pat and myself join her in the meetings there, the New Guild all of a sudden goes from "dormant" status to the "serious threat" status. Hmm. The appeal to test this theory out is almost irresistible

10. The SC acts as Judiciary as you know very well; it's part of their powers. In a sense they're a "super-judiciary" which has way more powers than a regular judiciary branch, but, again, that's just because we continue to lack enough people to add more branches at will. a) Like on almost every representative democracy. I know there are exceptions. But even Switzerland, with its direct democracy model, has party lists! Nevertheless, not to press the point further, we did abolish that requirement. So, sure, it's fine to say that the CDS made mistakes in the past (again, I'm tired of repeating that the CDS, the CSDF, and myself have made many mistakes in the past, we're not perfect), but we strive to correct them as best as we can. So, yes, things change.
b) Again, like on most Parliamentary democratic systems (as opposed to Presidential ones). In this case, there are many people in the world who, not living under a Parliamentary democracy, are not aware that billions live under that system: citizens, in a popular vote, elect a faction of their preference; the faction leader usually becomes the next Chief of Executive (or Prime Minister, or whatever the role might be called). Our system ads the twist that the Chancellor is indeed elected by the faction(s) which got the most votes in the elections, but it can be either a member of another faction or an independent candidate. To the best of my recollection, only once (Aliasi) did the RA elect a member of the winning faction as the Chancellor; since then it was always either an independent or someone from a different faction than the winning one.

The model of a Parliamentary democracy exists iRL mostly because it avoids separate elections for Representative Assembly and Executive, and makes sure that the Executive usually has good support from the Assembly for a term. This is what hundreds of countries believe to be the best system for them. However, as I have alluded several times in the past, and will repeat again for your benefit, I don't think this should be written in stone (what works for many might not work for us), and I'm fully prepared to endorse a Constitutional change where the Executive gets elected by a popular vote and not a collegial one, running two separate elections every term instead of just one. I see absolutely no problem in defending that suggestion and will be quite glad to argue in favour of it, if that's something currently bothering the minds of citizens.

c) Again, this is an evolution — the SC was supposed to be independent and autonomous in the way it selected its own members. It was felt that this made the SC too isolated during the phase where the SC was the target of fear, so we adopted that model instead. However, it's the first time I see someone raising the issue (when in the past it was furiously argued that SC members had to be nominated by the RA). What would be your suggestion?

d) That depends on what you mean by "resolving disputes". ADR is not a State monopoly in the CDS — anyone can do it. If you mean that the SC is the last court of appeal, then, yes, you're quite right. There has to be one, and it cannot be the same one as the legislative or executive branch. I also agree that under a perfect system, the Constitutional disputes ought to be in a different branch than the judicial disputes. "Perfect" in this sense means: if we had 40-50 people willing to serve in Governmental roles, instead of a dozen or so, it would make sense to rethink the system.

Not only was there no separation of powers, but to the contrary, all essential power belonged, in the end, to unelected party bosses who controlled RA nominations and, through them, all legislation, as well as the election of the Chancellor and the composition of the SC.

Now I sincerely lost you. All essential power belongs to the branch which has been voted into power by the citizens; that's what the RA stands for. The SC or the Executive (currently) are not directly "removable" by the citizens directly, so they elect their representatives instead. There are no "unelected party bosses"; in fact, the figure of "party boss" doesn't even formally exist. Anyone can create a faction, and always could; anyone is free to join any faction (although in the past some factions declined to accept some members, but that's up to them and their conscience) or form their own if they disagree with all. Yes, I know that you supported direct democracy at some point, but you forget that in real life, the only country in the world with direct democracy also has factions — Arria and Ulysse (and possibly others) can patiently explain you how the Swiss system works. They even have a very curious way of rotating their Confederation President among all factions (without the need of a popular election for that) which I always found amusing But the point is, it's impossible to prevent people with aligned goals and ideas to join together and act according the wishes of many, as opposed to their individual goals (in fact, the UDHR clearly defends the right of association!). So, sure, we can have a "formal" faction system, as we used to have, or the "informal" faction system we have now, where candidates run for RA independently. From my perspective there is really no difference from "before" or "after", except that I predicted that it's far harder to get a consensus with 13 different opinions than with 3 — I may be proved wrong on the next term, so I'm watching my own words to fully admit I was wrong, if that's the case.

But you're still flogging a dead horse here: the faction system as mandatory for elections was dropped from all government branches now.

11. ... with a slight catch, the Head of the Judiciary Branch could not be elected, appointed, nominated, or removed from office Ultimately, the inability to compromise on how to deal with that single point pushed the citizens to force the RA to get rid of it. You're getting it all wrong, Michel, but fortunately you can read the transcripts if you care. The CSDF was always behind Ashcroft's Judiciary System until the end (since it was the CSDF's proposal in the first place); the current formulation (delegation of judiciary powers to the SC) was actually a DPU proposal, after a lot (and I mean a lot!) of public discussion about it. It was silly to disregard the citizen's wishes to abolish the system (yes, even before it was tested). I realise that you (and not only you) still twist everything in your minds thinking "what will benefit the RA most?" while in actuality what the RA usually does is just to see how the citizens' preferences are better expressed. Often it means that what seemed to be a good idea at the time meets with so much disapproval that it has to be abandoned before it gets implemented — because citizens fear exactly that "implementation".

I personally feel very sorry that we never got a working Judiciary System, unlike what you claim. Just read what I have profusely written about it, when it all seemed to be going to work. I was involved at that time with non-CDS arbitration systems in SL, and truly felt that the CDS could set an example in Second Life as a place for people from all over the grid to bring their complains and settle them under CDS law. It would have been a huge boost for the CDS as a valid model: copyright infringements and griefing are still as strong in 2010 as it was in 2007, or perhaps even more so. The huge drama that is still going on outside the CDS shows that by far the situation is not settled. Activist groups that stepped in for content creators, who often burn out in their hopelessness to defend them, would simply be hosted under the CDS' banner. All this, I admit, was part of my personal plan for the CDS, one that I shared with Ashcroft, and the timing was just right.

But — alas — the citizens' wishes are stronger and more important than personal vision. They couldn't care less about this fancy vision; all they saw was how one line in the new code of laws actually gave absolute power to a single citizen that would never be elected and never be removed from office, and this was a position that Ashcroft, at that time, refused to step down from. Inevitably there was no way to "save" the old Judiciary System when people are not willing to compromise on relinquishing power.

The irony is that you fail to recognise that, but, on the other hand, utterly believe that a democratically elected group of people — who continue to get some votes every election, but never a majority — are able to "secure" that kind of power Just tell me how a faction who never had a majority in the RA, never elected a Chancellor, never had a majority at the SC, and never had a majority in any other non-governmental group, means "exclusive control" Ironically, for a while, there were some factions that did, indeed, hold a majority of roles in several groups, and they weren't ever publicly attacked, but it never happened with the CSDF. I usually attribute that to the wisdom of the citizens

But then again, this is just rhetorics again. I fear that many people don't really understand that their vote is powerful enough to get the people they like in, and the ones they dislike out of the CDS.

In any case... and to recap... the more separation of powers, the better. And people's minds change again. I'll thus ask two simple questions:

- Do people want to elect the Chancellor directly? (I would gather that the answer today would be "yes"). Taking into account that the Executive does, indeed, have the most power in the whole of the CDS (that's what the role was designed to be), how should its powers be checked?
- Should we attempt to re-introduce the Judiciary Branch again? And more to the point, do we have people willing to accept that role? Just look at the difficulties of getting RA & SC Archivists as paid civil servants to organise the Code of Laws... the role of Judge would consume much more time. Also, what do citizens really feel about it? I can imagine that a few are too scared of what happened in 2007 and don't wish to go through all that again — but are these "few" the majority or just a worried minority? Should we ask the question as a referendum?

I'm fine in rethinking those two things. The first one (Chancellor election) might be peaceful. Time enough has passed to possibly make the second one more palatable today. Let's put that as points on the agenda to discuss on the Town Hall meeting after next and see what the people say.

12. Oh come on, Michel, you can do better than that. Really. Your argument is that we're such power freaks and that people are so afraid of "us" (whoever those "us" might be) that a coalition of RL lawyers were pushed to prepare to remove all power from "our" hands using legal means. That's simply preposterous, when every six months the citizens can remove "me and my friends" (whoever they are) from the RA or any other governmental role by the simple power of the vote. I fail to see how you can support your argumentation except by a single reason: pure, old-fashioned paranoia. Sadly, that's a common affectation which is very hard to cure.

I also think that you have made the reverse argument be as valid: the fear of this strange super-powerful group that works behind the scenes (and that nobody can name them) to conspire to keep power in their hands has been so strong, that in the past three years, others have done whatever they could to wrestle the power out of them: first, by creating tight organisations (in the sense that nobody can enter them) to remove people at will from their elected roles; secondly, by trying to "go along" with the system, and move to collapse it from within, by gathering support from the citizens (through their vote); thirdly, when that failed, by wrestling legal battles outside the SL, which would ultimately put the CDS in the pockets of those who are willing to keep it for themselves.

See, two can play the paranoia game as well, and rest assured, I'm also a good story writer, and can definitely elaborate on a nice conspiracy theory that would fit all the facts. The difference with my own conspiracy theory is that whatever this secret group of "me and my friends" is, they can be voted out of office, they often stepped down voluntarily from their so-called "roles of power" and were immediately attacked for that — ironically, when everybody demanded that I voluntarily stepped down as Dean of the SC, which I did, I'm still to this day accused of being a power-monger because I happened to get enough votes to get elected in the RA afterwards; when everybody accused Pat of abusing his power as LRA, he stepped down, and was immediately accused of "manipulating" the RA for political reasons... and that's just two examples. It's an interesting twist of that conspiracy theory that every time a member of that secret group gets elected, it's power-mongering; when that member steps down, it's a manipulation technique. Conveniently as well, the membership in this group changes over time, to make sure that every case is duly covered. I wonder if the CSDF's enthusiastic support of Jamie as Chancellor on his 2nd term was not seen by some as believing that Jamie had entered this "secret group" too; the CSDF's public support of Cindy while she was LRA (or of Pip for that case) might have been seen also as a maneuver to put them under "our" hold, too. And Kas, because some CSDF members have shown enthusiastic support of your proposal, I now believe that you're part of the "secret group" as well. (Welcome!)

*Sigh* I think you guys read too much Prokofy Neva, to be honest. Just play it fair, if you don't like us, vote us out of office — don't play lawyers' games. I actually resented the implication that the CDS is not willing to comply with a legal agreement (and I'm not going to go back to the discussion about how that agreement was, to use a mild word, "negotiated") by putting the agreement above the will of the people. If I remember correctly, the agreement still gives the RA the right to vote the agreement down by a 2/3 majority (which is quite hard to do) as well as giving the same power to the AA citizens. What happens next? Are we going to be accused to "manipulate" the citizens to discard an agreement they don't like? I trust, like before, in the wisdom of the citizens in those matters. If for the past 10 months I have heard nothing in favour of the agreement — except, of course, from the interested parties that will benefit from it; and, surprisingly, from a small group of CDSers and Andalusians who have been actively engaged in doing whatever they could to make the merger go ahead as planned, even if they disagreed with some of the terms of the agreement — I wonder if that's not a clear sign that this agreement, as it stands, is not something that people actually want. Changing it into something more palatable by working on a compromise is the politically sensible thing to do. Is that a "conspiracy to stay in power" — or rather just common sense to try to please a majority of the citizens?

In any case, there is something important that I should mention at this stage, which I feel to be an unbrandished political argument. The CDS (and AA!) represent different things to different people. For the vast majority it means a strong community with exciting and appealing events. I admit that personally this comes second in my own priorities, when it is used as an argument to abolish democracy. And I'm aware that I belong to a very small minority (even though a vocal one!) which thinks that the values that the CDS stand for are more important than anything else. I'm sensitive to the argument that "an empty community is not fun" (and not financially solid). I'm also quite sensitive to the notion that most people joined the CDS or the AA for the only reason that it has a nice community, and "keeping that community nice" is at the forefront of their thoughts (to the point that ostracism to exclude the ones that "are not nice" is an adequate measure). "Community über alles" is something that makes a lot of sense for SL, because without communities, there is no point to log in to SL, is there?

I agree with all that. However, I still remain rooted in my values. There are plenty of happy communities out there in SL, and most of the oldest ones are very solid (Caledon or FurNation come to mind; the USS probably as well). There is a vast variety of choice for all tastes. From a purely "community" perspective, ours is not much different — it offers pretty much the same things under a handful of themes (the difference being mostly that there is no single theme in CDS/AA put together). Like all communities, it depends mostly on whom is actually fostering it — the many volunteers (and a few paid officers) who spend uncountable hours working towards more events, more community gatherings, more participation (like Rose, for instance) — and it also depends on the variety of choices, activities, and events that are offered. The level of happiness with all those things determines ultimately how much people are willing to pay for it (and how many people are willing to join) — and that is what brings financial solidity to the CDS/AA.

However, this is but one of the issues. Unlike other communities, the CDS (and AA too, to a degree) has something which is above all that: the notion that nobody "owns" the community, but instead, that it self-governs itself through democratic processes. This is quite unlike the vast majority of communities out there. The ultimate irony is that although this model has proven to grow very slowly, it is also financially solid — the lack of dependency on a single person, the ultimate goal of the CDS when it was started, to guarantee longevity, is proven as being a very solid argument to keep it going that way.

Since I'm in a rather bad mood, I'll just put my finger in the open wound. I think that nobody in the CDS (at least, nobody very vocal) refutes the notion that the AA has a far more exciting and vibrant community than the old CDS, and one that has far more to offer. I'm not saying that the CDS is "empty" — it isn't! — but its activities, compared to what AA has to offer, are very reduced in size and scope (even though they have dramatically increased under Rose's role as PIO in the recent past). I think this is undeniable. However, the AA went already through two crisis of single-person-domination. First, when MM abandoned the sims for Rose to pick them up. If Rose didn't step in, all this beautiful community would have evaporated overnight. Now Rose, very reasonably, is tired from her work and unwilling to continue to spend her money to maintain the community, which is quite within her right to do so. So once more the question remains: if Rose goes away and leaves the AA, who will be sponsoring the AA next?

The whole point of the merger was that initially it was found that the CDS, being financially solid, and lacking the dependency on a single member (we're all replaceable) to sponsor it, would be the best choice to "lend a hand" to the AA. The CDS is not phenomenally rich; a huge effort was made to make the AA numbers look good enough at the moment the transition phase started to at least nominally show that the burden on the CDS was not too great. And let's be honest: the burden is not too great. We can financially survive together without making too much of an effort. This was the whole purpose of the merger, and I'm fine with that. As said before, the CDS can only learn about how to foster a vibrant community. But the AA also has to learn to evolve in maturity regarding their financial solvency — put into other words, to learn to accept that it's always easy to create a wonderful community when someone pays for the bills and spends their whole time dedicated to it, but it's not that easy if you have to think and plan ahead and make hard choices (like replanning sims or rethinking how people pay for their contributions). Rose could have sold AA to Desmond and have it join Caledon; the leadership would have switched hands, but it wouldn't be much different — except, perhaps, that financial stability would be "imposed" as opposed to "being voted on".

Instead, the most reasonable approach was to get a community where there are no leaders and nobody to "impose" their will, but where every citizen has the right to get elected for management, and has a vote to decide who manages the sims. So far, it sounded like a match made in heaven.

Democracy, however, has a major drawback: it's true that citizens have the vote and the power to decide who manages their sims, but since it works through a majority, it's not easy to predict if the people who are currently managing the sim are one's "friends". To circumvent this possibility, the merger agreement, although it states clearly the notion of "one government, two communities", also makes it quite clear that the ownership of (some of) the sims is not in the hands of the people who live in it, but in the hands of a private organisation. The advantage of this model compared to the single-leader model is twofold: one one hand, there is no "single leader", since the organisation will have several members (but will not be open to all citizens). On the other hand, organisations often outlast their founders, and that is the whole point of having those organisations in the first place. Minor secondary advantages are the fact that organisations are more easily sued iRL and when LL is in a good mood, they even give them discounts.

The trade-off, of course, is that to be able to limit who has access to the ownership of the sims — at least some of them — the organisation is an institutionalised oligarchy. The so-called "sim government" elected by the people is little else than "event planners and organisers"; the real power — the power to change sims, to add sims, to replan and reparcel them, to raise tier levels, to open public spaces — remains outside the scope of the citizens' votes.

For many — nay, for most — this is not a "problem". After all, pretty much most of SL's communities work exactly like that, and they're not unhappy about it. The notion of community-as-a-business is absolutely not uncommon; in fact, it's possibly the most common model in SL. Except for utter newbies who never participated in any other community, and thus might not be aware of how things work in SL, everybody else will realise that this model is the most widespread one, and it's not a "bad" one.

Sadly for the legal experts behind this "putch", the CDS is unique in this: there is no "community über alles" in the CDS, but "democracy über alles". And that means that dissenting opinions are not stifled; dissenters are not kicked out (ostracism is forbidden); and, of course, it means that the really tough decisions take months or years of discussion as everybody has their saying, and might be reverted by the vote. This, seen by so many as "power struggling" and "nasty words", is what freedom of expression means: people being allowed to have an opinion, and being allowed to present their opinion bluntly.

Elsewhere I was accused of being a "fundamentalist believer in representative democracy". Aye, I am, and proud of being called that. The CDS without a representative democracy and the notion that people actually own their own community — not just merely "own" a plot in the SL sense of the world — is fundamental to my beliefs. It always was, and always has been; I'm sorry, but I see no point in discarding democracy in favour of "a friendlier community". It's a question of values and of a system of beliefs. I don't ask anyone to be "converted" to my beliefs — I just point out the difference between the two models.

Let's imagine the two worst-case scenarios. On the first one, democracy survives, and the nonsense about pushing ownership of the sims into a private organisation is dropped. In a year or so, the CDS/AA remains pretty much the same. It might have a few less or a few more sims. During some time, it might go through a period of austerity, as dissenters leave in disgust, leaving their plots empty. Sims might have to be reparceled or entirely given up. We might very well have different governing bodies — as suggested, a factionless RA might be more appealing; a directly-elected Chancellor might be more welcome; working regional committees might, in the future, be the core of power. But one thing will remain the same: the decision to drop a sim or two, to increase tier, to increase expenditure in events, and so forth, will not be in the hands of a single person (or group). It will continue to be decided by a majority vote. Oh yes, it requires placing far more responsibility in the hands of all citizens — there is nobody else to "appeal" for help or funding — but that's what maturity means: accepting responsibilities, making tough decisions that often nobody likes, for the greater good of all: and face the vote on the elections if your decisions are not welcome by the citizens.

On the second scenario, democracy is abolished. The new non-profit (which Solomon is already trying to set up) is established by a tiny group of interested citizens. As a non-profit, they might get some grants and donations to keep everything going. So-called citizens — let's call them "tenants" — will have no further responsibilities beyond paying tier, just like anywhere else in SL. They will come together to decide where to hold the next event or how to build the next building. If a majority are aligned with the wishes and will of the tiny group owning the sims, this will be met with approval. By working together closely, it will be easy to maintain a good working relationship with the majority of paying tenants, so that their will is always properly aligned. The forums, of course, will be dumped and shut down — they serve no purpose, as there won't be "dissenting opinions" (they won't be tolerated). There won't be "lobbies" or "pressure groups" or "factions" or "groups of concerned citizens" — all these are irrelevant when you can just show up at a meeting and say what you wish (and get ignored or not depending on your closeness to the oligarchy running the sims). And, one day, inevitably, the money will run out of the non-profit (such is the hard fact of life; even Caledon had to face that) and it will mean shutting it down, partially or totally, without appeal by the tenants — or, well, just sell the sims to the highest bidder, which is pretty much what other community-ran-as-businesses do all the time in SL. For many, this won't be a real problem (except perhaps for complete shutdown; then everybody will weep, cry, and tear their hair in frustration, but since there will be no public space any longer to discuss alternatives, those cries will be sad echoes without reach). I have lost count on how many times I saw this happening on several communities; I was part of a few myself, and totally powerless to prevent it from happening.

Or there is the "middle way". Under that model, communities are pretty much run in the way they like (I'm considering things beyond just CDS and AA, but possibly having more similar-minded communities join an "alliance"). Nobody will impose the "better" model over others. Some communities might be purely businesses with no pretences whatsoever of being anything else. Some might be just small groups of people pooling money together to buy a sim or two. Some might be large areas ran by non-profit organisations. Some might be interest groups fostered by universities or similar organisations. One will be a self-governed democracy without owners or external control.

As time passes, and some communities will fare less well than others, there will be crisis, mostly either financial, lack of community-fostering, or lack of building know-how. Kas' "committee" or "council" would be the forum where representatives will meet and try to arrange a solution. For instance, I can imagine that the first discussion on that "council" might be how to get more events on the CDS sims, and how to plug the financial holes in the AA for a while (until the SL market recovers). This "problem" will have a simple solution: a loan in exchange of some events, for example. Another time a sim owned by 4 people lose their master builder and might require someone to rebuild part of their community, but is unable to afford the costs of that. Perhaps a joint team lead by Satir and, say, Brian (or Moon) would be willing to get enough volunteers to do that work for free — or try to gather a package of financial support to get them some wages. At some point, one of the business-oriented communities might suddenly notice that the live music events in AA are incredibly well attended: the owner of that community might be able to afford to pay RL wages for the artists to do some concerts on their community — or give them free land to develop a Concert Hall in their community.

Is this just wishful thinking? No, I don't think so. I look at the layer below the so-called "power struggling" and what I see is people from both the CDS and AA spontaneously and independently getting together to work on common projects, no matter where they take place. And this, I think, is where the advantage of joining communities — even differently organised ones — lies. Those volunteers who do things for everybody couldn't care less about what goes on at the management/planning level: they just want the freedom to organise things, and the backing up (financially, promotionally) to be allowed to "make things happen". I don't really believe they have in mind what the "best" model of government is.

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm not a "community manager" (iRL I hire them, I don't manage communities directly ). What I'm good at is at defining frameworks under which community managers can thrive, and assemble teams of similarly-minded people that work towards maintaining that framework. I'm still convinced that the best model to create that framework has to be established on the fundamental principle that if you pay for something in SL, you are entitled to have a saying on how things are managed on your behalf, and that this "saying" has no limits or restrictions — e.g. in a word, you're entitled to decide who is supposed to manage things, put them into office, and remove them when you dislike what they did with your trust. The CDS proved that this model works, and I'm not prepared to abdicate it "without a fight", as said (and quoted!) before.

Nevertheless, if nobody else (or rather: if only a minority) believes that this is the better model to go ahead, I'll accept the popular vote to abandon it. What I won't accept is legal trickery to push people to accept what others believe to be the "best model". Still, if the legal trickery is voted by a majority as to be the best way to go ahead, I'll have no option but to accept.

Just look at the past record of all communities in SL — and compare it to the CDS. Except for FurNation, the CDS is the oldest community in existence. That says something about its management model, doesn't it?

[Robert Walpole]

Gwyn,

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful comments. It is, as always, a pleasure to have an argument with you, because even when we are both in a bad mood, we seem to (mostly!) be able to get beyond personal attacks and address in a reasonably coherent way matters of substance that are really important, both in terms of their theoretical import (the meaning of democracy) and actual relevance in SL (specific institutional stuctures). This, inevitably, carries the conversation forward and opens up avenues for solution, some of which you have clearly outlined. (Un)fortunately, I have (nor do I wish to have) no standing in any capacity whatsoever to negotiate anything with anyone. My only hope is that our conversation will clarify key underlying issues so that CDS/AA citizens who will take the time to read (at least some of) this will make more informed, and therefore, better choices when the time to do so will be at hand (ie very soon).

There are a few issues you raise on which I do wish to make a few points:

1. Our disagreement on the nature of democracy. If we go back to ancient Athens (and I am sure most Greeks today would love nothing better, given what is going on today in Greece; btw. you should write a paper on the eerie parallels between the Germany-Greece conflict under the EU umbrella and the ongoing AA/CDS dispute; Pride and Prejudice would be a good working title...), the citizens of the polis even at its greatest extent never numbered more than in the thousands; so it was natural that they all (or as close to as possible) gathered in the agora, debated issues together, elected their representatives, and devised their own institutions of governance together, as a polis (huge oversimplifications here but for the purpose of the argument it will do).

Representative government is a relatively modern invention, when societies numbering in the millions were gradually introducing democratic principles of governance and clearly needed a way to have a reasonably-sized discussion forum, whose members would in some way be democratically accountable to their constituents. The key elemet here is that the reasons for introducing a pure representative system were 1) a population's number in the millions; 2) great distances and slow communications (ie weeks or months of travel between capitals and constituencies; 3) relatively uneducated / uninformed populations who were more than happy (for a time, at least) to leave the decision-making process in the hands of their elected representatives.

To generalise, types of democracies have been historically diverse; pure representative democracy being only one of them; and in all cases the form of democracy chosen was one suited to the natural environment, population size, and speed of communication of the given society. Just as ancient Greek direct democracy is not feasable, on its own, in most modern nations, pure representative democracy would have made no sense in ancient Greece.

As our populations became more and more educated, better connected though various means of communication and information, and more critical of their government structures and representatives, new theories of governance (deliberative democracy for example, based on Habermasian models) have evolved, attempting to combine forms of direct and representative democracy, in order to make system, institutions and representatives both more presponsive to the will of the electorate and more efficient at resoving problems at various levels of governance (local, regional, national, international). As societies evolve and change, so do the types of democracy and the institutions through which they function.

What are the specific characteristics of a community like CDS? First, virtual abolition of time and space. People living continents apart get together in real time in the same virtual space simply by logging in. Second, up until now, an extremely small electorate (historically between 50 and 80, 130 only since the merger). To simply copy pure representative democracy institutions and procedures, designed fro an entirely different human, natural and communication environment, and transplant it to this community, anounts to nothing else than a total perversion of the values and principles of democracy you say you cherish and wish to uphold. The result has been the construction of a landed oligarchy (only fee-payers who owned "land", ie server space, could become citizens; volunteers who worked for the community and were even willing to pay some some fee but could not own "land", where not given the vote), who delegated its powers every six months to five to seven people, who then ran the community in-between elections. While this system may have made sense in certain historical and environmental circumstances, in makes no sense today, especially not in CDS where constraints of time and space have been abolished and where the citizen body is so small. The net result is that your cherished democracy becomes, in fact, a community of mostly absentee landlords ran by a board of less than ten people who make all the key decisions and implement them. It's fun for these ten people, but, you must admit, not much of a democracy.

Now, in real life it's rather hard to run democratic experiments and change structures and institutions simply to test various forms of governance; it usually takes revolutions to do so, and they tend to be rather bloody, so people try to avoid them when possible. In SL, however, we have, maybe for the first time, the extraoridnary opportunity to run social experiments in governance, with willing volunteers, to test new forms of democracy and governance at little or no cost in human lives ( or so it is to be hoped!). It simply makes sense therefore that, when we set up our own forms of democracy, we try to be as creative as possible, take into full account the actual environment in which we evolve, and try to devise forms of democracy and institutions of governance not only appropriate to this medium, but ideally some that might test new forms and combinations of democratic theory and practice out of which, maybe, real life forms may one day emerge. That is, for me, the true fascination and import of the CDS experiment; otherwise, it's really not much more than a game.

To conlcude this point, what I have argued for ever since joining CDS in 2006, was for us as a community to leave behind the entirely inappropriate (and frankly, undemocratic for this environment) form of pure representative democracy which had evolved in CDS, and experiment with more open, inclusive, and deliberative froms which would empower all citizens as opposed to a few, and allow maximum participation of all citizens, depending on their needs and interests. Some of the things I proposed were:

1. Direct election of RA reps;
2. Direct election of the Chancellor;
3. Creation of standing commisisons on key issues that would allow for citizen debate outside RA times and would advise the RA on specific topics;
4. New information and communcation systems (CDS portal, radio station);
5. An emphasis on educational and learning activities (classes, courses, conferences);
6. An expansion of the notion of citizenship by detaching citizenship from server space and tying it to a minimum fee; which really should not have been controversial given the micro-plots for sale in Neufreistadt where, for the price of a couple of dollars per month, one could indeed become a CDS citizen.
7, Introduction of referendums, both binding and not binding.
8. Recognition of various cultural / community groups which would be given self-governance in their specific field of interest all whilst retaining their status of full CDS citizens.
9. An independent and professional judiciary; and
10. Intra-faction democractic and accountable procedures.

We all know what howls of opposition and protest pretty much each of these proposals raised at the time, and how I was accused of being a tin-pot dictator trying to take over CDS and destroy its cherished democratic system. Ironcally, many of my proposals were introduced over time, not because they were mine, but simply because they made sense.

Eventually I did have enough of the name-calling and utterly unreasonable backlash and attempted to develop a different community along these lines, with the added twist of fucusing on cultural diversity and attempting to develop a democratic system of governance rooted in authentic islamic political and juridical principles. That was the Al Andalus Caliphate Project. For reasons which I will not go into here, I had to leave SL, and the project died, even if Al-Andalus as a virtual space and as a community, survived - but as a very different community, and with a very different structure of govenance, than I had originally envisioned. Still, because of Rose's dedication, the virtual place suvived, as well as some of the original values and ideals. I totally concur with you that it is not, by far, a perfect democracy; nor is, however, the CDS.

What both communities really need is an open discussion as to what democratic elements and structures of govenance are needed to combine elements of democracy and diversity, individual equality and group recognition, to meet the needs of its citizens. Where they will do this together or apart is an entirely different matter. The key point to emphasize, however, is that a system of pure representative democracy based on server space ownership is anything but democratic in the specific cricumstances of CDS; and therefore that the values you claim to defend, Gwyn, to which I fully subscribe, were honored more in breach than in practice over the past six years in the speclfic manner they have been impemented and practiced in the CDS. ( For having spoken against this, I had the honor of being labeled a would be dictator, insulted both regarding my motives and personally, and ultimately pushed into leaving CDS altogether and trying to start, on my own, a different type of community. But this is all water under the bridge and not relevant to the unfolding events).

So, in my opinion, for whatever it's worth, CDS/AA should look again carefully, either together or separately, at the issues listed above, and try to re-fasion your rather restrictive and undemocratic systems of governance into a system that looks to the future rather than the past, to create and innovate rather than simply copy old and inapproriate mechanisms, where a premium is placed on openness, inclusion, accountabilty, diversity and ability to respond to all citizens' needs and concerns, rather than to simply those of the few who bother showing up at RA meetings or contribute to forum discussions.

2. The question of the non-profit organisation. Since I am the one who started all this, let me clarify. My original Al Andalus proposal to CDS was based on one sim. Moon may even remember inspecting and approving (from an urbanism point of view) my 1/10 scale model, hosted in what once was my CDS Auditorium. When I decided to leave CDS and start the Al Andalus Caliphate Project, I decided to do so by using my non-profit organisation for fund-raising purposes. It simply is more credible to ask for advance funds from people on that basis, than otherwise.

I then wondered whether LL would give some kind of discount to non-profits running projects for educational purposes. To my delight, I soon discovered the answer was Yes, and that the discount was 50 per cent. LL confirmed this and specified the conditions. Basically, any money raised though tier payments had to be reinvested in the project's educational activities. During this time, I also met the creator of the Cordoba mosque, who showed some interest to relocate his amazing building in a sim where he would not have to pay tier. Given the sheer size of the mosque, I realised i would need two sims to create a city around it. This is when the idea of a two-sim recreation of the Alhambra fortress began to develop. Two sims for the price of one, extensive public buildings yet still enough space for citizens' housing to break even and even have some money leftover for events. A fixed citizenship fee, not tied to land / server space, to both maintain formal equality between all citizens and allow anyone wanting to join the project to do so, and to finance additional cultural and educational events everyone could take part in. My project had a very sound financial structure that respected both principles of democratic governance, financial viability and maintenance of non-profit status.

The relationship between what were to become the in-world, democratic structures of governance of the Project and the non-profit directors would have been very similar to those between the CDS leadership and Sudane. Despite the fact that the non-profit it the legal irl owner of the sims, its directors would follow the instructions of the in-world, elected representatives - with an appropriate system of checks and balances so that no one institution of individual could turn the entire project upside down. Yes, there would be an Estate Owner, but Sudane is also one, and in addition she is in charge of the Treasury, which makes her the de facto and de jure owner and controller of CDS. The fact that she defers to the decisions of CDS institutions is purely a voluntary thing on her part. She could easily decide not to, and there is little anyone could do to stop her. As far as LL is concerned, she is the owner of the CDS sims and can do as she pleases, including raising tier, levelling land, or selling the sims.

What, then, is the difference between having an all-powerful Estate Owner who, in fact, defers to the will of democratic, in-world institutions, and the board of a non-profit, owner of the Al-Andalus sims? In fact, the non-profit could (and did) remain owner of the sims, yet delegate the status of Estate Owner to a person not on its board, and the position of Treasurer to yet another person. Decentralization of power and decreased reliance on the good will of one person would have been much higher in Al-Andalus than has been the case in the CDS from its inception to today. So Gwyn, your existential worries about a pro forma, emasculated form of democracy because of the setting up of an all-controlling rl non-profit are not justified and, in fact, do not match either the CDS nor the original AA Project experience.

Nothing prevents the CDS to incorporate a non-profit, appoint to its board a group of trusted individuals, like Sudane, with no in-world elected or appointed positions other than non-profit directors, who then would appoint an elected or appointed (by the Executive Branch head) Treasurer and Estate Owner, who in turn would report to and follow the decisions of the Executive and legislative branches, all supervised by an independent judiciary. Such a structure would be no less democratic that the current CDS model, and probably much more so. The entire argument of being taken over by a dictatorial non-profit simply makes no sense in light of CDS's actual practices and the flexibility of a non-profit model. This argument is, really, a red herring designed to frighten uninformed citizens and stir up their emotions against the merger agreement. From the point of view of democratic theory and practice, there is nothing to worry about and much to commend in such a model. From a financial point of view, acquiring non-profit status would, of course, be a huge advantage for CDS - if that is, it could qualify. Persoanlly, I highly doubt the CDS as it exists could qualify, as the Al Andalus Project did, and this is one of the key reasons why I was whehemently against the original merger (academic, of course, since at the time I was no longer in charge of AA and my voice did not count -although MY non-profit which I headed remained the legal owner of the sims and despite the fact that, from LL's perspective, my non-profit and I remained the ultimate decision-makers regarding the future of the sims. For example, had I refused to consent to the transfer of the sims to the new non-profit, the sims would have been repossesed by LL, the vritual structures erased, the account closed.). As director of the original non-profit owner of the AA sims, however, i informed LL that I consented to the transfer of the sims to the new non-profit set up by Rose (longer story, but not relevant here). The transfer took place smoothly and uneventfully (insofar as I know) and my formal involvement with the AA sims came to an end.

So, if you and your friends, Gwyn, wanted to truly respect the merger agreement, you would have started 9 months ago to investigate the possibility and conditions of transferring formal ownership of the CDS sims to a non-profit, ensuring that you would comply with non-profit requirements. You could have appointed to the board either outside "Trustees" or, if you had so preferred, members of the SC. Sudane could have remained estate owner, and nothing at all would have changed in the daily govenance, administration and structures of governance of the CDS. Except that CDS now would be a non-profit and that the ownership of the AA sims could easly be transferred from the current non-profit set up by Rose to the new, CDS controlled non-profit. This is what was agreed in the merger agreement by the leadership of both AA and CDS. Why was nothing done until now to move ahead on this matter? As I explained, your argument about the gutting of CDS democracy by the owners of the non-profit is a silly, huge red herring, both because the setting up of a non-profit would do no such thing and would, in fact, be much more democratic that CDS' current set-up with Sudane, and because CDS itself, in its until now exisiting form, resembled much more an oligarchic absentee-landlord structure that a truly democratic system of governance appropriate to the size of its population and to the virtual environment in which it functions.

3. At the end of the day, it all comes down to this: who controls CDS? Until now, you and your friends (mostly old-timers from CSDF and DPU and SP, with your younger supporters and hangers'on) have consistently and vehemently opposed:

a. opening up of the factions system to direct elections of RA members by citizens;
b. direct election of the Chancellor by its citizens;
c. a professional and independent judiciary;
d. recognition of some form of self-governance for CDS sub-groups based either on sim location, or group characteristics (religion, language, ethnicity, sexual preferences);
e. delinking CDS citizenship from server space ownership by means of a low citizenship fee identical for every citizen, thus allowing anyone who wished to join CDS to do so;
f. term limits for elected officials;
g. minimum transition times before moving from sitting as member of one government branch to another;
h. creation of meaningful and effective in world tools of education, communication and information that would allow all citizens to participate without relying exculsively on on-line forums....

You get the point. The list could go on. The net result of this, whether it is yout stated intention or not, is for all relevant power in CDS remain tightly controlled by the same group of people who is so conveniently "forced" to run for the same key jobs again and again because no one else wishes to. Well, why would they want to give up their valuable time and skills, only to be faced with such a total caricature of what a truly democratic system of governance in the metaverse could be? You got it entirely wrong , Gwyn: it is not because no one wishes to run for office that you and your friends are "forced" to sit on the RA and SC again and again; it is because most CDS citizens take the CDS istitutions for what they really are: an oligarchic gated community, unresponsive to the needs of its citizens and communties, and tightly controlled by a group of long-term friends and aquaintances, that they cannot be bothered to give up their valuable time and skills -and so prefer to focus on their private pursuits, than on CDS public service. Open up the CDS system, democratise it, welcome new citizens, listen to their concerns, help them when they need help, organise events they are interested in, allow them to fully participate, and I guarantee you that you will not be "forced" to run ever again for office for lack of candidates and will disappear from the public arena, as you have wanted to do for so long....

So there you are. One man's opinions - and one who is not even a citizen anymore. So take it all for whatever it is (or is not) worth. But please, do not serenade a holier than thou ode about your commitment to the values and principles of democracy, when the actual from of governance you have set up in SL is entirely undemocratic with respect to its human, environmental, and financial realities - more an oligarchic, closed, absentee-land-lord system than anything else-, and do not claim to fight for survival of such a democratic system against the dark forces promoting an ownership transfer to a non-profit organization, when your own administrative system is even more arbitrary and open to one person's misuse and abuse than a non-profit, even at its worst, would ever be. Both these arguments are, as I said, huge red herrings. The sooner you and your friends recognise this, and realise that the real isssue is one of giving up your traditional oligatchic power and control over the CDS and its institutions, the better it will be for all. The lady doth protest too much... A little less self-righteous indignation and a little more honesty, please. I would expect nothing less from you Gwyn.

You openly recognise that you, your friends, CSDF, CDS have made many mistakes in the past. That you have had to change a lot. That there is stil a lot -"really a lot"- that needs changing to improve your system of governance and come closer to a more truly democratic system of governance, appropriate for the type and size of a vritual community you really are. Well, I'll take it at your word.

Take my list of 10 key items that need addressing in CDS. Trash it. Make your own. Ask all citizens -AA and CDS- to contribute. Have an honest and open debate. A bit like we have, here. Get beyond mistrust, misconceptions, false arguments, red herrings, name-calling, personal insults. Like he have tried to do in these excahnges. do not assume the worst of the other. Trust that you all share a love of these sims and this community.

Above all, re-read Delia's post. Then do what's right for all participants. From CDS. From AA. From the new, joint community that has been slowly coalescing and emerging over the past nine months. Make it a truly democratic, diverse, creative, innovative, fun place to be, that is both financially stable and at the leading edge of cultural, educational, and artistic life in the Metaverse. Is that too much to ask?

[Rose Springvale]

wow, that's a lot of writing. I'm not going to read it all, just point to the "clarifying misconceptions" post. Most of the problems noted simply do not exist.

there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and i'm not quitting either community. Just for the record.

[solomon mosely]

i'll admit that like rose, i "skimmed" and read bullet points. i know, i'm part of the problem print is facing, but... eh.

robert, i really like a lot of your points. i was planning to include some some similar items in my platform.

i'm a fan of referendums, but this particular one seems like a, (dare i say?) calculated strategy to have it on the heels of a very well orchestrated marketing campaign designed to create confusion, ill will, and division between the communities.
and i know it's not nice to accuse people of anything, but i think it's worse to do things to be accused of.
hopefully people will read rose's post to clarify the misconceptions.

i say, the representative assembly do it's thing and represent it's constituents, AA does it's thing and we wait and see if anyone files in writing before the deadline.
we could just go forward and start the work together and maybe no one will even call for a vote to de-merge, or second it if there is one.

wouldn't that be nice?