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

[Joe Baptista <baptista@pccf.net>]

On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> 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,

I can change that.

>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--
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>