[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"
> Nobody, not even you, actually advocates using Robert's Rules.
> Everybody, without exception, realizes that Robert's Rules
> don't fit our situation -- it takes about 5 minutes of looking
> through the book to be convinced.
Your notion of "exception" and mine are different. I look to adopt
Roberts Rules, you look to completely ignore it.
I trust to procedures that have proven their worth through hundreds of
years of practice and refinement.
You look to make decisions by some new-age, touchy-feely, "consensus" that
can't be described but we will know it when we feel the touch of its
invisible, but luminious, aura.
> Instead, what you are arguing for is an "adaptation" of Robert's
> Rules, an adaptation that completely undercuts the primary function
> of Robert's Rules, which is to serialize debate.
To think that Roberts is mere serialization is simpleminded.
Your lesson for the afternoon: Roberts provides fairness, structure,
accountability, and resistance to capture.
> What you advocate, in fact, is the creation of a whole new set of
> rules, with some superficial similarity to Robert's Rules.
You know that what you say is a gross misrepresentation.
I might add that your own proposals were less than a full adoption of the
IETF procedures with nothing changed. Indeed, one may readily conclude
that you have taken far more significant liberties then we have with
Score for today:
Karl: 2, Kent 0.