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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Mark Langston wrote:
>
>Thank you, Mr. Chair.  It's obvious you're taking an extreme position
>(detuctio ad absurdum, I believe) to avoid dealing with this.

Not really.
My point is that we cannot just pick the Roberts Rules "as they are", 
because they have been written for a different context.

The consequence is, IMHO, not that we should dismiss the matter but, 
quite the opposite, that we should define a specically designed set. 
This in reply to a previous posting that stated that RR is good "as is",
 and that it can be used starting now without modification.

>
>I did serious work to adopt those rules.  Don't make believe you're 
going
>to go over the same ground flippantly here.

The very fact that you did serious work on it means that you also 
believe that they have to be adapted to fit:
- today's reality (Y2K+)
- the different medium (online debate)

I'm sorry for you, but we agree ;>).

Regards
Roberto