[wg-d] Robert's Rules

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

I've been looking a bit into Robert's Rules and how we would use them.
I'm only at the start of my inquiry, so I'll have more comments later.

My initial concern was that I, like many, have come over the years to have
a fear of such rules.  I feared that they are nothing but a
incomprehensible and mind numbing set of motions, counter motions, points
of privilege, etc and etc.

The rules can get complicated if one wants them to be.

But that's the point, that they don't have to be complicated if one
doesn't want them to be.

The basic principle underlying the rules is one of amazing simplicity --
the chairman puts forth an explicit question to the group and calls for a
decision.  The vote may be by voice, by hands, even by humming.  The chair
measures and announces the result -- sounds a lot like consensus process
to me -- but there is a tremendous difference.

The difference is that anyone may, and without insult to the chair,
require that the chair perform a counted vote.  It does not matter,
whether it be because the issue is a close one, or simply because there
was some uncertainty caused by noise on a conference call or anything
else.

The ramifications of this simple step are significant.  It means that when
there is a large scale agreement, i.e. true consensus, the process can
move very quickly and without anyone feeling left out.  But when there
is a lack of real unaniminity, there is a process through which
unambiguous decisions can be made without risk of a misconstrued notion of
consensus and without leaving any latent resentment that the decision was
coerced.

The rules do get more complex in that they recognize that there needs to
be an orderly process for the evolution of a proposal -- a sequence
through which amendments can be proposed and acted upon -- and a means to
resume the primary thread.

I'll have more later as I get deeper into my inquiry, but my initial
concern has been answered:

I perceive that the use of the well known procedures, typically called
"Roberts Rules" need not significantly slow the pace of electronic
discussions except in situations in which there is a real division of
opinion.  And in those situations, the rules provide a degree of clarity
and focus that could avoid the subsequent revisiting of the same issue
over and over again.

What I am envisioning is a process in which we engage in our normal
electronic discussions (hopefully politely and without rancor - I can hope
can't I?).  However, when we reach a decision point, the chair can make a
statement that he/she perceives a consensus (and announces which way the
perceived consensus runs) or no consensus.  In the latter case, the group
would progress to a vote.  In the former case, there would be a period in
which anyone may object to the perceived consensus, thus also causing the
group to progress to a vote.

Voting may be by whatever mechanism and over whatever time period that the
group has established.

The certainty provided by the rules does come at some cost -- that of the
possibility of obstructionism by those who force everything to a full vote
simply in order to cause delay.  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.

		--karl--