Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

Need we be rigid constructionists?

I might suggest that like all bodies, we adopt the rules as a framework
and then make adjustments for particular cirmstances.

For example, virtually all of your objections can be answered with a bit
of common sense.

We are smart enough to recognize those rules that fit our needs and those
that don't.

I don't see this as a problem.  Rather it is an opportunity to be
something more than blind and dumb beasts.

Robert's Rules are the result of years of evolution.  That evolution has
not stopped; we are part of that evolution.

I might also remind everyone that the DNSO and its working groups are not
exclusively e-mail bodies.  There will be actual meetings, possibly with
conference calls (in which sequenced discussion is extremely important),
and possibly web-based conferences, possibly all simultaneously.


> 1.  A member must obtain the floor and be recognized by the 
> presiding officer...
> 
>   How do we do that? What does it mean to "obtain the floor" in an
>   email context?

Easy, we say that the floor is open to discussion.  Just like it is now.

It would be helpful when addressing a motion that we reference the motion.
That isn't rocket science.  I suggest that for an example, one look in
e-mail header above.

> 2.  The member who made the motion has the first right to speak to 
> the motion.  He does this by obtaining the floor...

Easy.  The person who makes the motion accompanies the motion with text
representing his/her initial statement.

> 3. A member can speak twice to the motion, but the second turn can 
> be taken only after everyone who wishes to speak has spoken...

The chair can simply say "wait your turn" to those who don't wait their
turn.

Besides, in e-mail people can read stuff in any order they chose
regardless of the order in which it was posted.


> 4. Each member can speak for a fixed time on each turn...
> 
>   How do we do this?

That's self enforcing.  Long volumes will simply not be read.  That's a
fact of e-mail life.

> 6. Speakers must address all remarks to the chair...
> 
>   What does this mean in an email context? How do you deal with
>   co-chairs?

Umm, let me consult my cat...  He says, to use the word "Co-chair" or
"Co-chairs".

 
> 8.  When speaking to a motion, it is important for the member to first
> let the assembly know which side of the issue he or she is on...in
> controversial issues, the presiding officer should alternate the
> debate between those who are speaking for and those who are speaking
> against... 
> 
>   How do we do this?  How does the chair recognize that someone 
>   wants to speak.  Do we all send emails saying "madam chairman, I 
>   wish to speak to ...", and then wait for the reply saying it is my 
>   turn to speak?

We've already seen this in action in which our Co-chair has requested
certain submissions from certain participants.

Since we aren't concerned with one speaker's voice making another speaker
hard to hear, the poll/select sequence is not nearly as important as it is
in the context of a meeting in a room.

The chair can indicate when discussion should proceed by poll/select or
open forum.

 
> 10. A member can't read, or have the secretary read, from part of a 
> manuscript or book, except short, relevant extracts...
> 
>   ??

Example: "Let me read into the record the entirety of Gibbon's Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire".

It prevents filibustering, record stuffing, and helps prevent excessive
copyright violations.


> 11.  During debate, a member can't talk against a previous action
> that is not pending, unless one of the motions to *rescind*,
> *reconsider*, or *amend something previously adopted* is pending... 
> 
>   ??

Questions that are settled are not to subject of continued discussion
except in the context of an express motion to revisit it.

> 14-17 etc etc etc

You'll have to cite the text since not all copies use the same numbering.

 
> Clearly, these rules not only intrude on the discussion -- they
> completely control the discussion, and permeate the entire debate. 
> They don't come into effect only when you want to take a vote. 
> *Every* utterance is controlled, and is a component of a formal
> process.  You don't speak unless the chair recognizes you; only one
> person speaks at a time; there is a strict hierarchy of motions, etc 
> etc. 

Yup, it's called "procedure".  It is a good thing.

		--karl--