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

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:30:40AM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> could you please point to a copy of *the exact rules you think we could adopt*?
> 
> Both you and previous posters make it abundantly clear that:
> a) the unmodified Robert's Rules are unworkable in an email context
> b) any ruleset must be examined in its entirety before one can have
>     an opinion on it.
> I've generally stopped replying to a thread when it came down to "we should 
> adopt <<<proposal X>>> but of course modified to fit our situation in the 
> obvious ways"; your saying that you have a concrete proposal gives me a 
> little more hope.
> 


Certainly.  The following posts to WG-D last year, when taken as a whole,
should be considered as my proposal:

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00223.html
  covers the substantial motions, gives analysis, and justification for
  adoption or rejection of each.

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00226.html
  covers voting procedure as discussed within the framework above.

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00227.html
  covers the issue of "silence" during voting or debate, and what it
  means in the context of an e-mail Body.

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00233.html
  revision of voting procedure as discussed above

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00242.html
  Clarification of what "consensus" means within voting procedure as
  detailed.

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00244.html
  Explication of final WG product acceptance within the framework.


Please keep firmly in mind the following when considering these
posts, which make up my proposal:

  This formal framework is designed to be entered into ***at certain
periods during the course of work within a group***, and is not designed
to govern every aspect of communication within a Body Electronic.
As I point out in my writings, a Body Electronic already has the controls
built into it that RR had to add by necessity for flow of conversation:
Namely, seriality.

  There are only a few times members of a Body would have to actually
operate within the framework for any period of time:  When some form
of actual product is being considered, or when any substantial decision
is to be made.  Those are the circumstances under which the "deliberative"
aspects of the framework come into play.  At all other times, things would
more or less proceed as they do now, with the exception that there would
be a set of checks and balances from which one could ensure the process
is fair and civil.  As long as the process remains as such, you wouldn't
even know you were within the framework until a vote was called or a
proposal regarding substantive work was made.

(In all truth, that's how RR actually work in Bodies whose members take
the time to understand the ruleset.  The awkward bumbling evidenced by
the Names Council and ICANN BoD should not be taken as evidence against
RR, for the simple fact that nobody took even the slightest interest
in seriously implementing them.  If they had, they would not have 
insisted upon referring to active motions as "tabled", a term which
means exactly the opposite within RR and most other parliamentary
procedures.  This would be akin to someone repeatedly referring to
DNS as "DMA", and then insisting they've tried DNS and in their expert
opinion it's not a good solution.)

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA