Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules

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

On 9 August 1999, dstein@travel-net.com wrote:


>> >Making anybody who wants to join a WG learn Robert's Rules might be a
>> >little bit too much to ask from them.
>> 
>> A possible solution might be to appoint someone, other than the Chair, as 
>> the parliamentarian. This would place the burden of becoming familiar 
>> with Roberts' Rules on only one person and could provide the added 
>> benefit of an additional check against a runaway Chair.
>> 
>>       -- Bret
>> 


>I have seen this solution work in some instances (usually a
>contentious group that has to get work done fast and dissolve).  From
>my experience it does work , but the downside is someone essentially
>loses their voice to become parliamentarian. I found that aspect
>frustrating. And the alternative (rotating parliamentarian) really
>gets us back to the situation of many people having to learn Robert's
>Rules.

I've seen this approach work as well.  I've also seen it fail.  It
usually fails when the parliamentarian is siding (c)overtly with the
chair on matters of substance.

At that point, however, the body is usually prepared to remove the chair
from power.

>
>As usual, there are no easy answers. In the end we are dependent on trust.

Very true.  The question could be viewed in the following manner:

Do we implement a system in which trust is a crucial element, where

a)  there are no checks and balances to ensure that trust is honored, or

b)  there are a set of checks and balances that may be used to correct
    a violation of that trust, and to a certain extent make the violation
    of that trust untenable?

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org