RE: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Javier
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 3:33 AM
>
> Roeland,
>
> Insult does not make your point stronger.

Pray, tell me where I threw the insult. I spoke the truth, I didn't
embellish, and I did no name-calling. So, where is the insult? Besides,
as Ed Gerck would say, the term "insult" is inter-subjective. What may
be an insult to sensitive you is certainly not an insult to me. I said
what I believe needed to be said. Some of you do NOT take the job
seriously, that is obvious. I simply enjoined them (the NC) to take the
job more seriously, or remove themselves (Yes, I know that you,
personally, take it seriously).

> Your assumptions are false. We never expected to have to
> resort to Robert's Rules or anything similar. We were hoping we could
work with
> consensus., not voting. Voting should only be a form formalizing
consensus.

Robert's Rules are NOT about voting, read the book Maybe, you should
read some history regarding the evolution of Robert's Rules. If you
never expected to resort to Robert's Rules them why did you try? Doing
so without preparation is chaotic and stupid. Also, very unfair because
it makes all the other participants look very bad. But, fairness is what
Robert's Rules are all about.