Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> How do you deal with the observed fact that there are those for whom
> delay is a positive good?

I believe that you provide a most excellent example.

And how do I deal with it?  Easy, you, like everyone else, can have your
vote.

 
> > But I would suggest that that is a cost
> > we ought to be more than willing to pay in order to obtain wide spread
> > agreement that the decisions were made fairly and thus need not be
> > revisited.
> 
> However, voting simply will not create that widespread agreement. 
> You postulate that the only time when voting is needed is when there
> is widespread disagreement

You obviously did not read what I wrote - I said decision point.  Even a
choice as to when to hold the next meeting could end up being subject
vote.  But then again, if everybody agrees with the chairman's reading of
opinion, then there won't be an objection and no vote will be called.

Easy as pie

> It is much simpler and cleaner to simply recognize that a rough
> consensus does not exist, and work from there.

"and work from there".  In other words use ad hoc, variable, changeble
rules.

You might have noticed that Robert's Rules does let the chair make a guess
as to consensus, but if anyone disagrees, then there is a well known
procedure on which to move forward.  It's called "a vote".

		--karl--