RE: [wg-d] Robert's Rules

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

Karl,

I like your inquiry, because Roberts Rules are (a) well known, and (b) are
something we can grow with.

I have two questions though:

1. Does the use of electronic media impede or significantly change the
perception of non-voting consensus - how can one, for instance, hum via
email?

2. How does this process help when the chair him/her/itself is unfair or
biased, refusing to see a consensus when there is one, or declaring one when
there isn't?  Is the solution to then count votes, and get a new chair?

Antony

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Karl
>Auerbach
>Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 1:49 AM
>To: wg-d@dnso.org
>Subject: [wg-d] Robert's Rules
>
>
>
>I've been looking a bit into Robert's Rules and how we would use them.
>I'm only at the start of my inquiry, so I'll have more comments later.
>
>My initial concern was that I, like many, have come over the years to have
>a fear of such rules.  I feared that they are nothing but a
>incomprehensible and mind numbing set of motions, counter motions, points
>of privilege, etc and etc.
>
>The rules can get complicated if one wants them to be.
>
>But that's the point, that they don't have to be complicated if one
>doesn't want them to be.
>
>The basic principle underlying the rules is one of amazing simplicity --
>the chairman puts forth an explicit question to the group and calls for a
>decision.  The vote may be by voice, by hands, even by humming.  The chair
>measures and announces the result -- sounds a lot like consensus process
>to me -- but there is a tremendous difference.
>
>The difference is that anyone may, and without insult to the chair,
>require that the chair perform a counted vote.  It does not matter,
>whether it be because the issue is a close one, or simply because there
>was some uncertainty caused by noise on a conference call or anything
>else.
>
>The ramifications of this simple step are significant.  It means that when
>there is a large scale agreement, i.e. true consensus, the process can
>move very quickly and without anyone feeling left out.  But when there
>is a lack of real unaniminity, there is a process through which
>unambiguous decisions can be made without risk of a misconstrued notion of
>consensus and without leaving any latent resentment that the decision was
>coerced.
>
>The rules do get more complex in that they recognize that there needs to
>be an orderly process for the evolution of a proposal -- a sequence
>through which amendments can be proposed and acted upon -- and a means to
>resume the primary thread.
>
>I'll have more later as I get deeper into my inquiry, but my initial
>concern has been answered:
>
>I perceive that the use of the well known procedures, typically called
>"Roberts Rules" need not significantly slow the pace of electronic
>discussions except in situations in which there is a real division of
>opinion.  And in those situations, the rules provide a degree of clarity
>and focus that could avoid the subsequent revisiting of the same issue
>over and over again.
>
>What I am envisioning is a process in which we engage in our normal
>electronic discussions (hopefully politely and without rancor - I can hope
>can't I?).  However, when we reach a decision point, the chair can make a
>statement that he/she perceives a consensus (and announces which way the
>perceived consensus runs) or no consensus.  In the latter case, the group
>would progress to a vote.  In the former case, there would be a period in
>which anyone may object to the perceived consensus, thus also causing the
>group to progress to a vote.
>
>Voting may be by whatever mechanism and over whatever time period that the
>group has established.
>
>The certainty provided by the rules does come at some cost -- that of the
>possibility of obstructionism by those who force everything to a full vote
>simply in order to cause delay.  But I would suggest that that is a cost
>we ought to be more than willing to pay in order to obtain wide spread
>agreement that the decisions were made fairly and thus need not be
>revisited.
>
>		--karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>