[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Robert's rules (Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings)
We discussed this at length in one of the working groups. Robert's rules
is designed for a medium in which only one person can talk at once. it is
not well suited for email. I said this at length then, and the majority
of those speaking on the issue didn't agree, but some did. I cannot now
recall if rough consensus was achieved on this question.
It is a really lousy way to run a mailing list, although only a poor way
to run a meeting; it may be a necessary evil in some live situations.
it's not a necessary evil on a mailing list.
that said, some subsets of it identify issues that do need some sort of
formal procedure: how to "call the question"; who sets the agenda for
example.
Wish I could say more but I'm at a conference on a slow line.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no> wrote:
> |
> | At 02:19 06.01.00 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote:
> | >Exactly Karl - and this is not the place for a censored list - we are a
> | >general assembly - time for roberts rules of order.
> |
> | It would be interesting to attempt to conduct business on a mailing list
> | under Robert's Rules of Order.
> | Quote from http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-07.htm#43
> |
> | "Disorderly words should be taken down by the member who objects to them,
> | or by the secretary, and then read to the member. If he denies them, the
> | assembly shall decide by a vote whether they are his words or not. If a
> | member cannot justify the words he used, and will not suitably apologize
> | for using them, it is the duty of the assembly to act in the case. If the
> | disorderly words are of a personal nature, after each party has been heard,
> | and before the assembly proceeds to deliberate upon the case, both parties
> | to the personality should retire, it being a general rule that no member
> | should be present in the assembly when any matter relating to himself is
> | under debate."
> |
> | If this is taken to mean that any member of the GA list calling another
> | member a liar is unsubscribed from the GA list until his words have been
> | debated, the GA list could become a rather quiet place.
> |
> | See also rules #72 and #73, same source.
> |
> | 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.
> |
> | Harald
> |
> ==>
> Let me add few comments. I did not browsed the complete
> Robert's Rules of Order Revised by General Henry M. Robert 1915 Version,
> Public Domain http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm,
> but from what I read it was written for men's world, and the #43
> quoted includes exemples like:
> "Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the gentleman a question."
> In the anglo-american men's world, calling somebody a "liar" is
> offten given as utmostly offending personnal attack.
> I would add that it is utmostly offending personnal attack, but still
> a civilised one. However there is something much below that,
> the situation when the person writing "disorderly words" is humiliating
> himself, and placing himself out of civilised world.
> I mention the situation when in a debate (here ICANN/DNSO GA business)
> a personnal attack is targetting somebody's reputation as
> a woman or a mother (should be also as a men and a father,
> but recent exemple on this forum was mostly aimed at women).
> I do not think that this kind of "disorderly words" should
> be consider as common as others, if we still claim to be humans,
> with some meaning attached to it.
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
>
>
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--