Posted to:
wg-d@dnso.org
Posted on: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:49:52
-0700
Robert's Rules of Order,
As Adapted and Revised to
Accommodate Electronic Bodies
Please read this all the way
through: there are points and distinctions made that bear directly on how
Working Groups are organized and conduct their business that go beyond the
specific application of Robert's Rules. This document discusses Motions,
addresses the application of Voting Procedure, and touches on Precedence.
It also attempts to relate how the Chairs exercise control in this
framework.
To begin, it will be necessary to discuss Motions. It
may seem tedious, but Motions are the impetus by which all work proceeds
under Robert's Rules of Order. Without Motions, nothing gets done. Of
course, I'll be adapting these to our circumstances, and I'll also be
doing away with a few.
Motions and their precedence are also the
most confusing aspect of Robert's Rules of Order, and the tools by which
filibustering, delay, and other parliamentary tricks may be played. Even
so, there's a very nice aspect to Robert's Rules: It's a set of very
strict procedures within which everyone agrees to operate. Although there
is the potential for someone to use these rules to her advantage, that
potential exists equally for everyone; furthermore, the ruleset has been
refined through the years to provide tools which counter many of these
tactics. What cannot be countered can be overridden by the Chair(s), the
group, or both.
A few procedural issues directly related to
Motions should be addressed here, however. The first is "the floor", and
its function within Robert's Rules of Order. Typically, before anything
can be done by anyone, a person must "obtain the floor". This appears to
be necessitated by the simple fact that a roomful of people all speaking
at the same time, often at cross purposes, is cacophonous instead of
orderly. By establishing the convention of "the floor" and the procedures
by which it is gained, granted, yielded, and lost, bodies were able to
impose a seriality in their deliberations, and to ensure that everyone was
heard.
A body that conducts its business via e-mail already has
this seriality, to an extent. The problem faced by e-mail bodies is not
one of simultanaiety, but temporality; where physical meetings are forced
to deal with multiple overlapping voices, e-mail bodies must deal with
e-mail delays, receipt of mails out of order, and other such problems
introduced by the medium.
I believe that to a large extent, these
problems can be ignored until and unless they demonstrate themselves to be
a significant impediment to conducting business.
Now, on to
Motions.
Motions
Typically, all business conducted
under RO (Robert's Rules of Order) proceeds from Motions. Some of these
motions are adequate for our needs; some are more suited only to physical
meetings. All of the motions are simply a formal way of saying, "I want",
"I propose", etc. The motions themselves are merely categorizations and
formalizations of the desires a body or its members may wish to express.
The rules of precedence and the manner in which motions are handled are
the means by which fairness is achieved.
The motions in full are:
- Fix the Time to which to Adjourn
- Adjourn
- Take a Recess
- Raise a Question of Privilege
- Call for the Orders of the Day
- Lay on the Table
- Previous Question
- Limit or Extend Limits of Debate
- Postpone to a Certain Time
- Commit or Refer
- Amend
- Postpone Indefinitely
- A Main Motion
Not only were these motions designed
around the concept of physical meetings, but they were developed to cover
a very broad range of circumstances and topics. I'll go over each, how
they apply (if they do), and how we should view them.
Fix
the Time to which to Adjourn
I view this motion as being
identical to our need to decide deadlines. When we are working, it will
become evident to the body, the Chair(s), or an outside influence, that
the work is nearing completion, or needs to be so by a certain date. When
this occurs, a member of the body or the Chair would motion that a
deadline needs to be set for such-and-such a date.
Adjourn
This is the motion to actually end a
meeting. In our case, this would be the motion to stop all work, and
disband. It assumes that the motion above was made and accepted, and the
date fixed has passed with no new motion to extend the date being made. To
call for adjournment would mean that the body believes the work is done.
Some may be concerned that this can be used as a weapon; I've seen
it cut both ways. Sometimes, it's used properly; others, it closes a
meeting before all substance has been considered. However, these examples
are from physical meetings. As such, there was usually a subsequent
meeting at which the substance could be considered. Here, we don't have
that luxury. Once a Working Group (WG) is disbanded, it's gone until it's
reconstituted for whatever reason. Appropriately, RO addresses this in
describing how the motion is handled. RO introduces the concept of
privilege with respect to motions and their precedence. Later, I will
argue for the elimination of the concept in almost every aspect. All
motions we'll be discussing here are non-privileged for the sake of this
document, save one, which I'm about to cover.
Take a
Recess
As this motion is only of good service to physical
meetings, I'd like to eliminate it.
Raise a Question of
Privilege
A Question of Privilege is a question that relates
to the rights and privileges of the assembly or its members. In other
words, its a question about the rules and how they're being applied. As
Seen On TV (*grin*), this is the ever-popular "Point of Order". In
practice under RO a Question of Privilege is privileged, and takes
precedence over just about everything. It's typically used to correct a
procedural error being made by the Chair or the body. It's usually
directed at the Chair because the Chair is the "arbiter of fairness", so
to speak. The Chair decides which motions are in order or out of order,
and keeps track of what's currently on the motion stack. So when someone
questions the rules and their application, it's usually the Chair who's at
fault, as the traffic cop for Motions.
Note that this isn't always
a challenge to the Chair's power; it can be tough keeping track of all of
this in a physical meeting. Often a body member will raise a question of
privilege to remind the chair of other pending items that take precedence
over the current motion. For example, the chair might be considering a
motion to start investigating a sub-area of the chartered topic when a
member calls a question of privilege to remind the chair of a called and
accepted deadline just days away.
Given that most of the questions
of privilege raised are ones that would be raised anyway in groups at
least attempting to be civil, one could argue for the elimination of this
Motion. I'm not sure if I am comfortable with that, however; the one thing
a question of privilege does is force the Chair to consider it. If someone
questions the procedure and its application, the question of privilege
*must* be addressed. It cannot simply be ignored. This Motion is the only
case in which a privileged Motion would exist. It's a check against the
power of the Chair. Without privileged status, it loses much of its bite.
Call for the Orders of the Day
This motion is a
"demand that the assembly conform to its program or order of business". As
such, it's a call from the body or the Chair to stay on topic and take
things in order. In practice, this Motion is called when there's
filibustering taking place, or one or more people have gone off on a
tangent and show no signs of relevance or return to the business of the
body. However, in practice, this Motion is called when there is pending
business scheduled for a particular date and time, and current business
threatens to prevent the scheduled business from occurring.
For
our purposes, I recommend we keep with the spirit of the motion, wherein a
call for the Orders of the Day would be a gentle but formal reminder that
there's work to be done, and that certain parties should shut up and get
back to the topics at hand. :)
This places some added importance
on the Charter of the group, and the order of business as defined both by
the Charter and as revised by the group. This is a good thing, I believe.
As I think we've all seen, the WGs tend to go off on tangents. By placing
this added weight on the formalization of the group's work and the topics
to be considered, the Chair and the body both gain a bit of control over
some otherwise wild conversations.
Of course, this necessitates a
more formal approach to the Charter, the work it describes, and the goals
of the WG as viewed by the body, but I think this will work well.
Lay on the Table
Think of this motion as
indefinite postponement. When a motion to table an item is made and
accepted, the item is not considered again unless a motion to untable the
item is made and accepted at such future time. Any qualification of the
motion (e.g., "lay on the table until Monday") is a postponement, which
isn't the same thing.
I'd like to do away with this motion, as
I've never seen it used as anything but a weapon. Assuming that the body
can stay on-topic, this motion shouldn't be necessary. I don't like
parliamentary games and games of quorum numbers; this motion has always
been a favorite with both. I don't see it benefiting us in this medium.
Previous Question
This motion is basically a
call to vote immediately on the current topic. Assuming everything goes
smoothly, this shouldn't be a necessary motion. However, nothing ever goes
smoothly. This motion is an indication that the body believes the
conversation is no longer productive and that further debate would be a
waste of time.
Now, that sounds pretty contentious, and in
practice, it can be. However, in practice, it would seem that the body as
a whole has a good sense of when something has and has not reached a point
where no further debate is necessary. Often, this motion is a formality,
because most of the body agrees that a decision needs to be made on this
topic. Other times, this can be used as an attempt to ram through a
proposal without adequate debate.
That's why this motion requires
a supermajority (2/3) affirmative vote.
If this motion passes, a
vote is taken on the item in question. This may seem somewhat unnecessary,
but it's another check against attempted minority control of the body. As
such, I believe it should be kept in.
Limit or extend limits
of debate
This motion is an intriguing one, because it
introduces a topic that only a few have touched on so far: How to limit,
time, etc. the debates that we have. I don't mean to suggest that such a
limit is necessitated in all debates. In practice, deliberative bodies
often have open-ended debates.
When limits on a debate are
imposed, it's usually when the open debate has adequately explored the
breadth and some of the depth of all sides of the argument. Usually, what
happens is:
An open debate is held (much like what we have now in
the WGs) A motion is made for X number of speakers for each side The
speakers proceed to argue their case for X minutes. Debate is closed. A
vote on the issue is usually taken unless a motion is made to extend
debate.
What I'd envision for our WGs via e-mail is similar:
An open debate is held, as we're now doing,
A motion is
made for X number of speakers for each side (they usually volunteer) (This
assumes the Chairs can clearly state each of the "sides" in the issue, so
that people can self-organize)
The speakers are each allowed one
(possibly length-limited) e-mail arguing their case. The e-mail must be
submitted within 24 hours.
Debate is closed. A motion to the
previous question would now be in order, unless someone wants to extend
debate or the limits on the debate.
The motion itself is just
that: A motion to limit the debate (e.g., the motion in the 2nd step
above), or to extend those limits (additional speakers, additional
time/e-mail, etc.).
Postpone to a Certain Time
This motion is exactly what it says it is; a motion to postpone an
item until a certain specified time. For example, one could motion to
postpone an item until a meeting in Santiago.
In practice, this is
used to change the precedence of an item of business, and is usually
employed to get the item listed as "new business" at the next meeting.
Since we don't have "next meetings", this loses a lot of its power as a
parliamentary tool, and relegates this motion to a scheduling tool. I
still think it should be kept, because it requires agreement. Without
agreement, this could be used as a delaying tactic, and that would be bad.
The alternative would be that nothing could be postponed.
Commit or Refer
This motion is one made when the
question would appropriately be addressed by a subgroup. We've already
seen this used informally in WG-D. I think this is a sensible motion. It
adds the requirement of agreement of the body.
Amend
The motion to Amend is a formal attempt to attach new items to an
existing motion, or to change the substance of a motion. In my opinion,
this motion is relevant when a document is being produced. Otherwise, one
tends to get into games where you're arguing over one word of a motion,
and I've lost a lot of sleep putting up with those. We've all seen how
semantics become very important in the issues we're discussing. However,
it's usually over tangential items, or items of substance that are being
debated and not formally proposed.
Here we make another very
important distinction between physical bodies and e-mail bodies. All of
our conversation is via e-mail. As such, it's sometimes difficult to
distinguish between formally proposed wordings (documents, proposals,
motions, etc.) and casual debate.
We need to establish clear
guidelines that will distinguish these two types of communication. Once
that is achieved, this motion would *only* apply to the formal documents,
proposals, motions, etc. where every word counts. Otherwise, we'll end up
arguing about the semantics one uses during debate. While this can be a
valid debating point, it's simply not necessary to impose a formal
structure onto quibbling over words 'spoken' in debate.
When an
item is amended, the proposed amendment is announced, and the amendment is
voted on. If the amendment is accepted, then the amended item's vote is in
order; otherwise, the item is voted on as it was originally stated.
This can speed things up. For example, if someone motions to
postpone an item until January 10th, and someone else believes a majority
thinks the postponement is necessary but the date is bad, the person could
offer an amendment changing the date to December 1st. The alternative in
this case is to let the original motion be voted on, and hope it fails,
and then make a new motion with the new date.
The application to
formal documents should be obvious.
Postpone
indefinitely
I feel the same way about this motion as I do
about tabling an item. I don't think we need this motion.
A
Main Motion
A main motion is typically a motion to formally
introduce a new topic, or to accept or adopt a report of a subgroup, or of
the body. This motion isn't a Motion, per se; it is instead a category for
all the other motions not already covered:
- Annul
- Appeal
- Call to Order
- Objections
- Division of the Question
- Expunge
- Leave to withdraw or modify
- Objection to Consideration
- Rescind
- Repeal
- Withdrawal
For various reasons, I don't think most
of these are necessary. Withdrawal, Objection, Objection to Consideration
should stand, however, as Withdrawal is the formal removal of a proposal
from the body, and both Objections and Objection to Consideration should
remain for the checks they provide against mob rule and the tyranny of
silence.
Voting
For our purposes, there are two
opposing forces pulling at either end of the voting issue; Fairness and
speed. I think we can all agree that we'd like everything to proceed
fairly for everyone concerned. However, I think we'd also agree that we
need a streamlined process that doesn't grind to a halt every time there's
a decision to be made.
For the past two weeks, we've discussed
consensus in and outside of the IETF process, and we've batted Robert's
Rules about a bit. I think the reason these two have come up (besides
personal prejudices and experience) are that each addresses one of these
two concerns: Consensus procedures sacrifice fairness and accuracy for
speed, whereas Formal voting procedures such as those offered by Robert's
Rules of Order give accuracy in return for time.
Perhaps there's a
happy medium.
Let's start by considering the need for voting: As I
proposed in my discussion of Motions, there are several places where a
vote would need to be called (I haven't gone into too much detail because
it's tied up in the formality of precedence, and I'd like to rake the
percentage votes over the coals here as well). If we relied solely on
Robert's Rules, this could become a long process, even after efforts are
made to speed things up. What we need is a bit of consensus process.
So, something occurs that necessitates a vote according to
Robert's Rules. Under Robert's Rules, the chair would then proceed to call
some form of vote (verbal, show of hands, secret ballot, etc.). What I
propose instead is this:
- After a reasonable amount of time[0] has passed since the event
requiring a vote has occurred, and no one has objected, the Chair may
claim consensus and move on.
[0] To be determined by us.
- If someone does object before or within a reasonable amount of
time[0] after the chair claims consensus, the Chair must look for
support of this position within a reasonable amount of time.[0]
- If support for the objection is found in the form of X[0] number of
people agreeing with the objection (this could be considered
"seconding", but it would be by more than one person), then the Chair
calls the issue to a vote.
The easiest, simplest, most
open form of voting I can come up with is this:
- When the chair calls a vote, the chair announces exactly what's
being voted on, and posts a list of all current members of the group.
(by "current list", I mean a list obtained at the time of calling the
vote, not some list saved for this purpose).
- Everyone on the list is allowed, but not required, to vote yea or
nay, or any other means of indicating assent or dissent within reason
and common decency. The vote ends at a predetermined time announced by
the Chair when the vote is called.
Ok, there are some
problems with this. For example: This takes too long. Perhaps, perhaps
not. Here's something that will speed things up. The chair posts a list of
all valid voters when the vote is called. Assuming the vote is on
something that requires a simple majority and not some odd supermajority,
*as soon as that majority is reached*, the Chair may move on. The
requirements of Robert's Rules have been satisfied (simple majority vote
or whatever majority was required), and the requirements of consensus have
been satisfied (more that 51%, less than 100%). There's really no need for
business to wait for a full official count.
Furthermore, this
behooves those who wish for a speedy process to vote quickly.
Now,
there's another issue: Someone can just object to every call for
consensus, thereby driving the group to a vote on each and every issue.
I've seen it done in physical meetings, and it's very annoying to sit
through when it's not a matter of utter substance.
Therefore, I
propose that we limit everyone to X number of objections to a call for
consensus (X being small). If everyone is only allowed to object to only
one or two calls for consensus, hopefully they'll refrain from wasting
them on efforts to block progress, while still having a tool to
legitimately question the existence of consensus. If something really
wrong is going on, there are enough calls allocated to each person to
ensure proper votes are taken on important issues. The earliest objection
to the call for consensus (as timestamped by the mailserver dnso.dnso.org
and inserted into the header of every message sent to the list) will be
the one "counted" as the official objection, to prevent several people
from losing an objection over the same call.
Silence and the
vote process
As I proposed it, silence should be interpreted
thus:
- Silence during/after the call for consensus should be interpreted as
assent.
- Silence during the search for support to an objection should be
interpreted as dissent with the objection.
- Silence during the formal vote should be interpreted as abstention.
If there aren't enough votes to reach majority, then either everyone
disagrees but doesn't want to go on record saying so, or no one's paying
any attention. Either way, the vote fails and there's no consensus.
Which is appropos, since if there aren't enough people to reach simple
majority, or enough people willing to support the call for consensus,
then the call should not have been made, and the challenge to the call
succeeds.
There's still one problem with this, and that
is: The Chair could call consensus when the one known dissenter is unable
to respond. In this instance, if there's actually enough support for the
position that there isn't consensus on the issue, someone else should be
willing to challenge the call.
This leaves the door open to the
possibility that the only person left with the ability to challenge the
consensus isn't able to respond. In this instance, the number of
challenges each person received was too low. We'd have to be careful to
ensure that one side cannot trick another into depleting the challenges of
every opponent in order to railroad a proposition.
This may sound
too much like a game than a deliberative process. In a sense, it does.
However, there are similar and much worse abuses committed in exactly the
same way using parliamentary procedure, or *any* set of formal rules. In
every body, there's going to be one person who thinks they can play the
rules to their advantage. Short of ejecting these people, there's not much
that can be done about that. And I *will not* advocate something like
that, because who decides what's abuse, and what's an honest attempt to
maintain fairness?
(actually, there are *instances* where I could
be persuaded to go along with this, assuming there's *always* a
double-chair system, both chairs agree on the ejection, and there's
support of the body. I'm not ready to agree with it in general, however.)
|