[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-d] More Robert's Rules: Streamlining Voting
Hi,
Two thoughts.
1) I think the "limit number of objections" is a morass we will be sorry
about
2) How the vote if framed is very important. I assume that you are looking
at the "do you like this, Yes or No" type of vote.
However, there may be a different kind of vote, such as choosing one between
2 or more options.
Or instead of choosing just one, we might want to look at expressing
preference, which does tend to preserve the real feelings of the assembly.
Roberts Rules don't contemplate this sort of voting at all (as far as I
know), but we should.
Antony
+-----Original Message-----
+From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Mark
+C. Langston
+Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 3:14 PM
+To: wg-d@dnso.org
+Subject: [wg-d] More Robert's Rules: Streamlining Voting
+
+
+
+ Those of you who took the time to read my article on motions may be
+wondering about voting. It was mentioned, but never discussed in the
+previous article. I'll attempt to address it here.
+
+ For our purposes, there are two opposing forces pulling at either
+end of the voting issue; Fairness and speed. I think we can all
+agree that we'd like everything to proceed fairly for everyone
+concerned. However, I think we'd also agree that we need a streamlined
+process that doesn't grind to a halt every time there's a decision to
+be made.
+
+ For the past two weeks, we've discussed consensus in and outside of
+the IETF process, and we've batted Robert's Rules about a bit. I
+think the reason these two have come up (besides personal prejudices
+and experience) are that each addresses one of these two concerns:
+Consensus procedures sacrifice fairness and accuracy for speed, whereas
+Formal voting procedures such as those offered by Robert's Rules of
+Order give accuracy in return for time.
+
+Perhaps there's a happy medium.
+
+ Let's start by considering the need for voting: As I proposed in
+my discussion of Motions, there are several places where a vote would
+need to be called (I haven't gone into too much detail because it's
+tied up in the formality of precedence, and I'd like to rake the
+percentage votes over the coals here as well). If we relied solely
+on Robert's Rules, this could become a long process, even after efforts
+are made to speed things up. What we need is a bit of consensus process.
+
+So, something occurs that necessitates a vote according to Robert's
+Rules. Under Robert's Rules, the chair would then proceed to call
+some form of vote (verbal, show of hands, secret ballot, etc.). What
+I propose instead is this:
+
+1) After a reasonable amount of time[0] has passed since the event
+requiring a vote has occurred, and no one has objected, the Chair
+may claim consensus and move on.
+
+ [0] To be determined by us.
+
+2) If someone does object before or within a reasonable amount of
+time[0] after the chair claims consensus, the Chair must look for
+support of this position within a reasonable amount of time.[0]
+
+3) If support for the objection is found in the form of X[0] number
+of people agreeing with the objection (this could be considered
+"seconding", but it would be by more than one person), then the
+Chair calls the issue to a vote.
+
+The easiest, simplest, most open form of voting I can come up with
+is this:
+
+* When the chair calls a vote, the chair announces exactly what's being
+ voted on, and posts a list of all current members of the group. (by
+ "current list", I mean a list obtained at the time of calling the vote,
+ not some list saved for this purpose).
+
+* Everyone on the list is allowed, but not required, to vote yea or nay,
+ or any other means of indicating assent or dissent within reason and
+ common decency. :) The vote ends at a predetermined time announced
+ by the Chair when the vote is called.
+
+
+
+Ok, there are some problems with this. For example: This takes too
+long. Perhaps, perhaps not. Here's something that will speed things up.
+The chair posts a list of all valid voters when the vote is called.
+Assuming the vote is on something that requires a simple majority and
+not some odd supermajority, *as soon as that majority is reached*, the
+Chair may move on. The requirements of Robert's Rules have been
+satisfied (simple majority vote or whatever majority was required), and
+the requirements of consensus have been satisfied (more that 51%, less
+than 100%). There's really no need for business to wait for a full
+official count.
+
+Furthermore, this behooves those who wish for a speedy process to vote
+quickly.
+
+Now, there's another issue: Someone can just object to every call for
+consensus, thereby driving the group to a vote on each and every issue.
+I've seen it done in physical meetings, and it's very annoying to
+sit through when it's not a matter of utter substance.
+
+Therefore, I propose that we limit everyone to X number of objections
+to a call for consensus (X being small). If everyone is only allowed
+to object to only one or two calls for consensus, hopefully they'll
+refrain from wasting them on efforts to block progress, while still
+having a tool to legitimately question the existence of consensus.
+If something really wrong is going on, there are enough calls allocated
+to each person to ensure proper votes are taken on important issues.
+The earliest objection to the call for consensus (as timestamped by
+the mailserver dnso.dnso.org and inserted into the header of every
+message sent to the list) will be the one "counted" as the official
+objection, to prevent several people from losing an objection over
+the same call.
+
+This is just something I roughed up over lunch today, but I think it
+has some promise, at least as a possible alternative to "all consensus
+all the time" or "let's all vote every single time".
+
+--
+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
+
+
+
+