Re: [ga] Point of Order - is out of order. Time to move forward..

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Gary and all assembly members,

  Thank you gary for correctly pointing out some the finer points
of "Points of Order" in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order.

  However Gary the DNSO GA some time ago under a different
Chair ruled out "Roberst Rules of Order" some time ago now.
So you are correct also in that this Point of Order is out of
order...

  Some history.  Some time ago, Karl A suggested that a
version of "Roberts Rules of Order" adapted for the Internet
and E-Mail forum such as the GA list be used.  This too
was rejected but the than sitting Chair.  The DNSO GA
as you may know, really does not have a set processes
or procedure that was voted upon and approved by the
GA members...  Hence Jamies motion stands as is,
and/or with the already offered and seconded amendments
or modifications and is in the 6th day of debate out of
the 10 that our Chair, Thomas Rossler stated he would
abide by before going to a vote/ballot issued.

  So in this light, the tally still stands at 17 in favor of a vote
on Jamies Motion, 6 against...

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 11:22 PM 08/05/02 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> >The fact of the matter is that there is a reasoned point of order on the
> >table. I would personally like to hear from our chair whether it is in
> >order or whether the discussion on the motion can proceed.
>
> I'd like to make some points about a Point of Order.
>
> First, I couldn't find any mention of what a Point
> of Order is, insofar as it relates to the GA. Is such
> a rule written down somewhere, even by a record of
> past consensus? If not, then isn't a Point of Order
> a dev/nullity?
>
> Second, assuming that the minimalist rules of order
> of the GA are augmented through rough consensus by
> occasional looking for guidance from, for example,
> Robert's Rules of Order, then a Point of Order is
> *not* debatable and is ruled on forthwith by the
> Chair (the Chair may put it to a vote). In the case
> of the Chair making a ruling it can be appealed (which
> must be done forthwith and requires a second) and it
> then goes to a vote to support the Chair's ruling,
> or not.
>
> Third, Robert's Rules of Order almost always breaks
> if you selectively use some of its rules and not others.
>
> Fourth, if we aren't using Robert's, or others', rules,
> it seems to me a Point of Order may be safely ignored.
> If OTOH we are, even roughly, using Robert's Rules, then
> I can't make points about Points of Order and this email
> may be safely ignored. -g
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html