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

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

On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 08:10:03AM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> Think People.
> 
> If Robert's rules are adopted, this person who says this when told lists are
> running appropriately:
> 
> >> I disagree, at least for the WGs. We haven't had quite the disruption
> >>that the GA has suffered. The old saw about not fixing what isn't broken,
> > 
> > I can change that.
> 
> will use those very rules to tie us up in endless challenges under those rules,
> and effectively castrate this group by using those rules against it.


That is why there is a necessity for a Chair in RR-governed bodies.
The Chair can rule such tactics dilatory and effectively route around
the problem.

Some of you don't seem to grasp the subtle balance of power that exists
between the Chair and the Assembly as well as the Assembly and itself.

Needing to correct for issues such as the one you just raised is one of
the only reasons the Chair has any power at all.  The entire system is
one of checks and balances of power, which is why each rule must be
examined to ensure:

1)  It is effective within the proposed structure,
2)  It maintains the dynamic tension necessary to ensure fairness.

Think of it as game theory, and you're creating a hot new card game.
You want enough power on each side to make it interesting, but you also
want to ensure balance so that no one side has an unfair advantage over
another.

THAT is what RR is, folks.  Much of the work is sprinkled with rules
designed to account for noisy people in one room.  I removed and/or
modified those, and gave good reason for doing so.

There were two general reactions to my work:

1)  Kneejerk refusal to consider because it's "Robert's Rules, and we
    don't like that."

2)  Kneejerk refusal to consider because participants might have to
    engage their brain and think about what they say, how they say it,
    when they say it, and to whom they say it.  In short, people ignored
    it because it meant they'd have to learn a set of rules.

Adopt them.  Don't.  I don't care.  But let me state here and now that:
The work is mine, and regardless of the copyright the DNSO sees fit to
but at the bottom of the list pages, the work remains mine, I do not
surrender my copyright.   Additionally, I will not be held liable for
their use or any actions or effects resulting directly or indirectly from
their use or misuse.  I do hereby release those rules as I wrote them
under the GPL v2.0.

I'd also like to point out that since his election, I haven't seen our
illustrious Chair do anything whatsoever for this group.  The proof's
in the pudding, and this pudding smacks of hickory-smoked sham.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA