RE: Robert's rules (Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings)

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

I disagree, at least for the WGs. We haven't had quite the disruption that the GA has suffered. The old saw about not fixing what isn't broken, applies here, IMHO. However, I am quite cognisent of the fact that WG rules will not scale to the GA, a much larger list. WG-B is fairly well behaved and WG-C is reasonably civil since the two-post rule was applied, however loosely.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Karl
> Auerbach
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 12:10 AM
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: William X. Walsh; ga@dnso.org; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami 
> School of
> Law
> Subject: Re: Robert's rules (Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings)
> 
> 
> 
> > I don't believe this is appropriate for a mailing list, due to the 
> > multistranded nature of mailing list discussions, but those 
> who ask for 
> > Robert's rules of order should be ready to accept the consequences.
> 
> In WG-D we had a long discussion on Roberts Rules, a 
> reasonable derivative
> appropriate for e-mail discussions was presented and largely (but,
> of course not universally) agreed to.
> 
> I, for one, believe that we ought to be using, at least in the working
> group context, rules derived from Roberts Rules.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
> 
> 
> 
>