Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

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

On 9 September 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:

>
>Nobody, not even you, actually advocates using Robert's Rules.  
>Everybody, without exception, realizes that Robert's Rules 
>don't fit our situation -- it takes about 5 minutes of looking 
>through the book to be convinced.
>
>Instead, what you are arguing for is an "adaptation" of Robert's 
>Rules, an adaptation that completely undercuts the primary function 
>of Robert's Rules, which is to serialize debate.

No, the *primary* function of RR is to provide a fair and balanced
framework in which debate can be pursued, conclusions drawn, and
decisions made.  The inherent seriality found in RR is due to the
fact that physical meetings allow for multiple simultaneous speakers.
This creates unintelligible cacophony, in which *literally* no one
person can be heard.

E-mail discussions are in themselves inherently serial, and as such,
do not need the imposed seriality of RR.

The only thing I've done in my modified version is eliminate those
aspects of RR that deal with seriality, since we've already got it.
What you're left with is the framework that provides a level playing
ground, with room for a controlling chair, and checks against that
chair's power.

>> Let's use a procedure which has been show to work well for a very long
>> time in very contentious situations, Robert's Rules.
>
>But in fact the new rules you propose would be better called 
>"Karl/Marks Rules", and they they have NO history behind them at 
>all.  These new rules you propose have never been used anywhere, 

Cute alliteration.  If you're trying to insult me by implying Communist
tendencies, I'm not insulted by that.  As I think I've mentioned previously,
I have at times been a Democratic Socialist.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to sully the efforts by painting
them as revolutionary, I'll abide by that as well.  They are.


>and in fact they don't even really exist yet.  Calling them 
>"Robert's Rules" is probably an intellectual property violation of 
>some kind, and putting a reference to "Robert's Rules of Order" in 
>the bylaws would be monumentally misleading, at best, since we would 
>really be referring to "Karl/Marks Rules".

No, the original copyright on "Robert's Rules of Order", dated 1915, has
expired.  "Robert's Rules of Order", as written by General Henry M.
Robert, exist in the public domain.   All current published works are either
derivative of these public-domain works, or are copyrighted based on
the new document that exists as a modified form of the PD original.
The titles "Robert's Rules of Order, Revised" and "Robert's Rules of Order,
Newly Revised" are usually used for these documents.

The PD works include the 1st ed (Feb, 1876), 2nd ed (Jul 1876), and 3rd 
ed (1893), which are referred to as, "Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for
Deliberative Assemblies", with the cover short title of "Robert's Rules of
Order".  The 4th ed (1915) is also PD, and is the first to carry the title
"Robert's Rules of Order, Revised".

"Robert's Rules of Order" (the exact phrase) is copyright 1997 Henry
M. Robert III, who is Trustee of the Robert's Rules Association.

This, however, in no way precludes the adaption of the rules to suit
our needs.  It also does not prevent us from using any edition of the
Rules in part or in whole, pristine or mangled.  At worst, we'd have
to come up with a title other than "RROR".  "Rules Designed to Keep
A Plethora of Curmudgeons Honest" might suit. ;)

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org