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

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

At 15:24 06.01.00 -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:

>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.

could you please point to a copy of *the exact rules you think we could adopt*?

Both you and previous posters make it abundantly clear that:
a) the unmodified Robert's Rules are unworkable in an email context
b) any ruleset must be examined in its entirety before one can have
    an opinion on it.
I've generally stopped replying to a thread when it came down to "we should 
adopt <<<proposal X>>> but of course modified to fit our situation in the 
obvious ways"; your saying that you have a concrete proposal gives me a 
little more hope.


Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway