[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Robert's rules (Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings)



We discussed this at length in one of the working groups.  Robert's rules
is designed for a medium in which only one person can talk at once.  it is
not well suited for email.  I said this at length then, and the majority
of those speaking on the issue didn't agree, but some did.  I cannot now
recall if rough consensus was achieved on this question.

It is a really lousy way to run a mailing list, although only a poor way
to run a meeting; it may be a necessary evil in some live situations.
it's not a necessary evil on a mailing list. 

that said, some subsets of it identify issues that do need some sort of
formal procedure: how to "call the question"; who sets the agenda for
example.

Wish I could say more but I'm at a conference on a slow line.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no> wrote:
> | 
> | At 02:19 06.01.00 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote:
> | >Exactly Karl - and this is not the place for a censored list - we are a
> | >general assembly - time for roberts rules of order.
> | 
> | It would be interesting to attempt to conduct business on a mailing list 
> | under Robert's Rules of Order.
> | Quote from http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-07.htm#43
> | 
> | "Disorderly words should be taken down by the member who objects to them, 
> | or by the secretary, and then read to the member. If he denies them, the 
> | assembly shall decide by a vote whether they are his words or not. If a 
> | member cannot justify the words he used, and will not suitably apologize 
> | for using them, it is the duty of the assembly to act in the case. If the 
> | disorderly words are of a personal nature, after each party has been heard, 
> | and before the assembly proceeds to deliberate upon the case, both parties 
> | to the personality should retire, it being a general rule that no member 
> | should be present in the assembly when any matter relating to himself is 
> | under debate."
> | 
> | If this is taken to mean that any member of the GA list calling another 
> | member a liar is unsubscribed from the GA list until his words have been 
> | debated, the GA list could become a rather quiet place.
> | 
> | See also rules #72 and #73, same source.
> | 
> | I don't believe this is appropriate for a mailing list, due to the 
> | multistranded nature of mailing list discussions, but those who ask for 
> | Robert's rules of order should be ready to accept the consequences.
> | 
> |                      Harald
> | 
> ==> 
>     Let me add few comments. I did not browsed the complete
>     Robert's Rules of Order Revised by General Henry M. Robert 1915 Version,
>     Public Domain http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm,
>     but from what I read it was written for men's world, and the #43
>     quoted includes exemples like:
>          "Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the gentleman a question."
>     In the anglo-american men's world, calling somebody a "liar" is
>     offten given as utmostly offending personnal attack.
>     I would add that it is utmostly offending personnal attack, but still
>     a civilised one. However there is something much below that,
>     the situation when the person writing "disorderly words" is humiliating
>     himself, and placing himself out of civilised world.
>     I mention the situation when in a debate (here ICANN/DNSO GA business)
>     a personnal attack is targetting somebody's reputation as
>     a woman or a mother (should be also as a men and a father,
>     but recent exemple on this forum was mostly aimed at women).
>     I do not think that this kind of "disorderly words" should
>     be consider as common as others, if we still claim to be humans,
>     with some meaning attached to it.
> 
>     Elisabeth Porteneuve
> 
> 

-- 

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--