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

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> >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.
> 
> Do you have a pointer?
> The official (according to www.robertsrules.com) book is 706 pages long... 
> I'd expect any derived work to be considerably shorter.

It's all buried in the WG-D archives, generally with the words "Roberts
Rules" (perhaps with some apostorphes) in the subject lines.

There are lots of variations and adaptations all under the umbrella term
"Roberts Rules".  (In WG-D someone put together a bit of history about Mr.
Roberts - an officer in, I believe the British Army - and how various
editions of the rules evolved.)

Mark Langston did what I believe to be a useful analysis of the rules,
separating out the parts that were present because of the physical
characteristics of people meeting in one room (i.e. only one speaker at a
time), and such.  This resulted in a significant pruning of things like
floor control.

On the other hand, the Rules (I'm using a generalized umbrella term here)
are deficient regarding management of "the floor" in an electronic
context.

In a discussion on this matter at the LA ICANN meeting, which is where
WG-D left off, a number of us felt that a blending of techniques was in
order - fairly informal/consensus based progress punctuated by clear,
formalized, and relatively infrequent decision making points -- these
would be more than mere votes, but more of a Roberts Rule styled dance of
final arguments, motions, compromising amendments, and votes.  (These
formalized events need not stop the informatl discussion on other
threads.)

I got the impression that everyone present at that small LA meeting of
WG-D felt somewhat comfortable with that approach, that good progress
could be made during the informal stages, and that runaway chairmen or
construed "consensus" would be cought and limited by the formalized, Rules
based steps.

		--karl--