[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules
At 11:38 PM 10/08/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>Here's some "rules of debate" from my simplified Roberts:
>
Thanks Kent.
Now let's focus on each one in turn and see how we can adapt the underlying
priciples of RR to an email grouping with an archiving website.
Let's rewrite RR for Cyberspace. It's a major task, but if we stick to the
most important principles of RR, it is well worth the effort.
>1. A member must obtain the floor and be recognized by the
>presiding officer...
>
> How do we do that? What does it mean to "obtain the floor" in an
> email context?
>
We can have multiple asynchronous floors here, without interference between
them. Sort of what Kent is doing with his simultaneous presence in
multiple WG's.
We can let the Chairs approve the name of each thread or name the thread
himself when he considers it worth another "floor".
So
1. The Presiding Officers (Chairs) approve a topic for discussion by a
named member of the group. The Chairs may impose limit on the participation
of one individual in multiple topic threads.
>2. The member who made the motion has the first right to speak to
>the motion. He does this by obtaining the floor...
>
This rule is still valid in cyberspace. The member who makes the motion can
speak to it in the same posting or request others to hold their fire (apart
from seconding) until he has the opportunity to speak to it.
So
2. The member who makes the motion can speak to the motion at the same time
or can be requested by one of the Chairs to speak to the motion in a
specified time frame (I suggest 24 or 36 hours).
>3. A member can speak twice to the motion, but the second turn can
>be taken only after everyone who wishes to speak has spoken...
>
> What does it mean to "take a turn" in an email context?
There is no need for taking turns.
So
3. A member who has spoken to a motion can email the Chair with a request
that he wishes to speak to it once more.
The Chair will then asks the group if all who wish to speak have spoken and
grants the request if no one wishes to speak (he can give the group 24
hours).
>4. Each member can speak for a fixed time on each turn...
>
> How do we do this?
simple
4. Each's member's speech is limited to 15 K, unless with permission of the
Chair.
>
>5. <,I wonder what this rule was>...
>
>6. Speakers must address all remarks to the chair...
>
> What does this mean in an email context? How do you deal with
> co-chairs?
I think in cyberspace this means:
6. Speakers are encouraged not to address their postings to other members.
>
>7. In debate, speakers refer to officers by title and avoid
>mentioning other members' names
>
> Sounds good :-).
>
I translate:
7. Speakers shall observe elementary netiquette and recognize cultural
sensitivities to rude behaviour.
>8. When speaking to a motion, it is important for the member to first
>let the assembly know which side of the issue he or she is on...in
>controversial issues,
See the exhortation on the IDNO website."This
list implements a policy of maintaining civil discourse.
Non-members
who wish to post their opinions would help the clarity of the
discussion
by providing a brief introduction of their position, especially
if they
are partisans for other constituencies."
the presiding officer should alternate the
>debate between those who are speaking for and those who are speaking
>against...
>
> How do we do this? How does the chair recognize that someone
> wants to speak. Do we all send emails saying "madam chairman, I
> wish to speak to ...", and then wait for the reply saying it is my
> turn to speak?
>
8. In controversial issues the Chair can assign pro and contra threads and
partisans can opt to be grouped in any of these threads. The chair will
also assign a "compromise" thread where those with positions that span the
controversy can be grouped.
>9. The speaker who makes the motion can't speak against it...
>
> OK
>
>10. A member can't read, or have the secretary read, from part of a
>manuscript or book, except short, relevant extracts...
>
> ??
>
10. Already covered by 4.
>11. During debate, a member can't talk against a previous action
>that is not pending, unless one of the motions to *rescind*,
>*reconsider*, or *amend something previously adopted* is pending...
>
> ??
11. The Chair can direct the member to stay on topic or remove him from a
"floor". The member can then opt to request for a new "floor".
>12. During debate, members should take care not to disturb the
>assembly by whispering, talking, walking across the floor, or
>causing other distractions.
>
> This one will be easy :-).
>
>13. Only one person at a time may have the floor.
>
> Highly appropriate for email...
>
Not needed when we have multiple floors.
>14-17 etc etc etc
>
>Clearly, these rules not only intrude on the discussion -- they
>completely control the discussion, and permeate the entire debate.
>They don't come into effect only when you want to take a vote.
>*Every* utterance is controlled, and is a component of a formal
>process. You don't speak unless the chair recognizes you; only one
>person speaks at a time; there is a strict hierarchy of motions, etc
>etc.
>
>Clearly, many of these rules are simply inappropriate for an email
>discussion. But there are many many other such problems. What does
>it mean to be "out of order" in email? What does it mean to "open the
>floor" when your debate is ongoing 24x7?
>
Email shows it advantages here over meatspace debate.
(I know, I know, it has also it's disadvantages in the lack of
social-control feedback)
>I'm not exaggerating when I say I can multiply these examples at
>will. I now have three different versions of roberts rules sitting
>on my desk here, including the definitive reference, "Robert's Rules
>of Order Newly Revised 9th edition". In every one of them I can open
>practically any page, and point out something that is inappropriate
>for an email forum.
>
>There may indeed be things we can *borrow* from Roberts Rules -- but
>no matter what we do, we will be inventing something new.
>
We are. Let's not be shy to put our shoulders under it.
RR is an exellent guide for the principles of creating order our of chaos.
People may think that we have too much noise on email lists, but if you
witness a session of the (fill country of choice) Parliament you would
wish that there *was* a delete key for the childish noise.
If we apply an adaptation of RR, you will find that the Chair will have
many powers to direct the discussion.
Acceptance and trust of the Chair(s) by the majority of the group will then
be essential.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org