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

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

To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robert's rules (Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings)
From: Joe Baptista <baptista@pccf.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:47:24 -0500 (EST)
cc: Harald@Alvestrand.no, karl@CaveBear.com, ga@dnso.org, froomkin@law.miami.edu
In-Reply-To: <200001100956.KAA28653@smtp-out.minitel.net>
Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org

On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> No, you should read from several postings of mine that I believe that, 
> although a set of parlametary rules must be adopted, RR "as they are" 
> are not fit for the purpose, because adoption of the full set would mean
>  the paralysis of the list.

oh - this of course assume the list is not already in paralysis.  An
incorrect assumption.

References:
- Re: Re: Re: Robert's rules (Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings)
  - From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>

Prev by Date: [ga] RE: [wg-c] comment deadline for WG-C interim report
Next by Date: Re: [ga] RE: [wg-c] comment deadline for WG-C interim report
Prev by thread: Re: Re: Re: Robert's rules (Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings)
Next by thread: [ga] Dispute resolution
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread