Re: [ga-rules] Re: Definition of Motions & Procedures

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

on 6/27/01 5:50 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand at harald@alvestrand.no wrote:

> 
> 
> --On tirsdag, juni 26, 2001 12:48:09 -0400 Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Harald,
>> Something I lifted from the Presbyterian Church General Assembly that
>> might be a good starting point:-
> 
> this has a lot in common with the "Roberts Rules of Order" that were an
> active topic of discussion about a year ago on the GA list.

And in WG-Review. Obviously there is ongoing interest in adapting these to
the electronic environment.
> 
> I will make the same comment I made then: That these rules were made for a
> situation in which all the participants were physically present in the same
> room, and where taking a vote on a motion was a 5-minute matter,
> essentially free.
> Only one topic could be discussed at a time, because there was only one
> room in which to speak. Indeed, only one member could speak at a time.
> Misbehaving members could be physically removed from the room (yes, there
> are rules in Roberts for that), and the meeting would end after a "motion
> to adjourn".
> 
> In the case of an electronic debate, we have a different set of parameters:
These are advantages.
> 
> - The committee is "always in session" (until the ML is closed)
- - Hence, the secretariat is saved advance notices to announce the assembly
is in session. The OrgComm, or Chair can make an announcement to the lists
that a particular topic is now in session, with an attached timeline.  Since
that saves the secretariat function, cross-posting to the sub-lists for this
specific purpose should be allowed. I notice Patrick has just posted an
announce to the list with a short deadline. The OrgComm is just an extension
of that role to assist the Chairs in promoting issues that needs attention,
and sets out a procedure for dealing with them over a longer period of time,
instead of leaving everything to the last minute.

> - Participants are spread out over the whole Earth
- Good. More diversity of input.

> - Having multiple conversations is completely possible (at least if your
> mailer does threading)
- TheOrgComm doesn't change that. There would be issues running on
overlapping timelines, some short, some long, same as now, but people would
know the stage a topic had reached at any particular time.

> - A reasonable e-mail based vote cannot be done in less than 24 hours
> (allowing for earth rotation), and often a week is more appropriate.

- The OrgComm would use 7 days as this is considered "Best Practice" (unless
external circumstances dictated otherwise).

> Especially the last point makes the voting on amendments a quite expensive
> proposition.
> (The pure workload cost of balloting is also an issue - especially if it
> has to be fitted within a fixed secretariat budget. It is not ignorable.)

The secretariat budget needs to be increased to a level where it can be
expected to function professionally. In the meantime, we can only work with
what we have. We can do amendment voting (if necessary) by straw poll on the
ML, co-opting an underutilized sub-list, so as not to clutter the main list.
If not, the Chair has to determine consensus.

These are all processes currently used by Task Forces and WGs. The OrgComm
is just harnessing existing effort within the GA to make it more useful to
the NC and BoD.
> 
> The "rule of chair", where the chair is charged with finding an appropriate
> text to vote on, is certainly a possibility - but that is what we have, and
> are trying to get away from, I think.

A Chair has been known to evaporate (I am thinking of Greg Burton). Whatever
we introduce should not rely on any one person. Nobody is indespensible, but
it is not the OrgComm's job to interfere with the power of the Chair. That's
off-topic and out of place in this discussion IMHO. However, the Chair may
delegate power on their own discretion. That is the option of the Chair.

> Some specific notes below.
> 
> 
>> 
>> DEFINITION OF A MOTION:
>> The General Assembly uses voting as an aid to determine consensus. Before
>> it can vote, however, an issue must be advanced (put) and debated. The
>> method by which an idea or proposal is put for consideration is called a
>> motion.
>> 
>> A motion may come from a committee or from a member who has been
>> recognized by the Chair. When recognized, the member says, "Chair, I move
>> that _______________________. This becomes the main motion. But, before a
>> motion can be considered by the Assembly, it must have a second.
>> 
>> A motion from a committee is assumed to have a second. Once seconded, the
>> motion is put before the Assembly for debate and a vote. The maker of a
>> motion is generally granted the first and last opportunity to speak to it.
> 
> Note that this assumes a deterministic speaking order. Not enforceable in
> email.

I agree this part is irrelevant. The way I see it, the Chair (or member of
the OrgComm if delegated responsibility) may decide to post a note to the
list giving 24 hours notice of moving from stage A to stage B and so on.
This just serves as a reminder to a previously published timeline. Obviously
there will be a few out of step, commenting on stage A for 24 hours or so,
but I don't see that as a problem.

The point is, we will have a timeline that supports the Chair in efforts to
move things forward, that will eliminate the problem of taking one step
forward, then two steps back, and nobody knowing where we are. I'm heartily
sick of reading posts that the Chair is either overstepping the line by
trying to push his own agenda, or not doing enough as a servant of the
Assembly. If the OrgComm work with the Chair on a task list and timeline,
that noise will be stopped dead in its tracks. Perhaps we should rename this
the "Grounding Committee".
> 
>> 
<snip about Definitions, being too much to deal with in one post>

>> PROCEDURES - (BASED ON UN MODEL)
> 
> I like the concept of a "two phase" model - the difference between the two
> phases in the email context would be that in the first phase, there is a
> topic and no proposal; in the second phase, there is a proposed text.
> 
> One could imagine having multiple overlapping discussions where each
> discussion would pass through the two phases - this may be too confusing.
> Or maybe not.

The two phase model is good, and happens naturally already, but building it
into the timeline, would give the Chair a guideline for when to call for
proposed text to be submitted (or a consensus decision that no motion was
appropriate at all).

Introducing the whole concept of an Organizing Committee is proving hard
enough, so I would say that we should test one topic and state that all
motions on that topic should follow the same timeline. Half way through the
procedure, we can then introduce an overlapping timeline for the next topic
and build from there. It was suggested to me privately that we should set
July for topic A, August for topic B etc. I don't see that as viable. To
suggest that a topic is out of order at any time is not acceptable, but we
can certainly implement the system that way.
> 
>> 
>> FIRST SESSION
>> 
>> SESSION OBJECTIVES: To exchange general views regarding the substantive
>> issues to be addressed on the topic and to begin to highlight the areas of
>> convergence and divergence within the group.
>> 
>> BEST PRACTICES* (not a rule - note 1): Informal setting. Each member will
>> be limited to no more than 5 posts to ensure maximum participation from
>> all members of the General Assembly. Duration: decided by the Organizing
>> Committee.
>> 
>> SCOPE OF THE DISCUSSION: The purpose of this session is to provide an
>> opportunity for members of the negotiating bloc to express and exchange
>> general opinions on the topic and to begin to highlight the areas of
>> convergence and divergence within the group. This preparatory work will
>> greatly expedite the work of the negotiating bloc's next session, which
>> will be to prepare formal bloc positions on the Chairıs draft negotiating
>> text.
>> 
>> The second session will consist of another negotiating bloc focused
>> specifically on the draft negotiating text.
> 
> The concept of "bloc" occurs here for the first time. What does it mean?
In this context, it means "session"
> 
>> 
>> SECOND SESSION - The Process of decision making
>> 
>> OBJECTIVES: To highlight concerns, problems and possible proposals related
>> to the topic; to review the Chairıs draft negotiating text and decide on
>> the general and specific amendments that the group wishes to make to the
>> Chairsı text.
>> 
>> BEST PRACTICES (not rules): This activity will retain the same
>> configuration and modalities as the first one, described above.
>> 
>> SCOPE OF DISCUSSION: Time should be devoted to the review of the Chairsı
>> draft text. The group will proceed paragraph by paragraph and identify:
>> (1) the issues that are problematic to the group as a whole; (2) the
>> perceived gaps in the text; (3) and the possible amendments that will be
>> tabled.
>> 
>> At the end of the sessions, members will be asked to provide the Chair
>> with their formal written amendments. These written amendments will then
>> be incorporated into a revised version of the Chairsı text.
> '
> 
> Who decides what amendments to incorporate?
> the Chair, the OrgComm or the vote of the assembly?
> see "cost of votes" above....

See "no costs above..."

The OrgComm has no power, unless Danny wants to explicitly delegate a task
to it. Personally, I don't see it as needing any powers to be effective.
This is a voluntary "Best Practice" initiative, not a power struggle.

The Chair calls for formal submission of amendments on the rough text of a
motion, and it may be that two similar versions of one motion need to go to
a vote to determine the preference for the final motion, or motions. What
I'm saying is that you can't, and shouldn't stop people from making any
amendements at all, but you can limit the number of amendments that will be
accepted by using a deadline for submissions. If it is an arbitrary
deadline, the Chair has problems. If it is an OrgComm deadline set to meet
an imoveable end date, it is in everybody's interests to abide by it. How
amendments are incorporated is really up to the Chair, and if an interim
vote is desireable, he has discretion to use a straw poll as suggested
above.

Apologies for the length of the response, but I hope this clarifies my
vision for the ORGComm.

Regards,
Joanna 


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