[wg-d] First pass at Robert's Rules

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

Robert's Rules of Order, 
As Adapted and Revised to Accomodate Electronic Bodies

Please read this all the way through.  There are points and
disctinctions made that bear directly on how Working Groups are
organized and conduct their business that go beyond the
specific application of Robert's Rules.  I'll try to summarize
these in another document.  As it is, this document discusses
Motions.  Another document will be forthcoming which addresses
the application of Voting Procedure, and a third which discusses
Precedence.  A fourth should also be forthcoming, detailing how
the Chairs control all of this, assuming I haven't dropped dead
before then. :)

(A note to Javier: I looked at the URL you provided that referenced a
"simplified" form of RR.  It was simply a very high-level summary of
the contents of RR, and didn't address any substance at all, that I
could see.)

To begin, it will be necessary to discuss Motions.  It may seem
tedious, but Motions are the impetus by which all work proceeds under
Robert's Rules of Order.  Without Motions, nothing gets done.  Of
course, I'll be adapting these to our circumstances, and doing away
with a few.

  Motions and their precedence are also the most confusing aspect of
Robert's Rules of Order, and the tools by which filibustering, delay,
and other parliamentary tricks may be played.  Even so, there's a very
nice aspect to Robert's Rules: It's a set of very strict procedures
within which everyone agrees to operate.  Although there is the
potential for someone to use these rules to her advantage, that
potential exists equally for everyone; furthermore, the ruleset has
been refined through the years to provide tools which counter many of
these tactics.  What cannot be countered can be overridden by the
Chair(s), the group, or both.

  A few procedural issues directly related to Motions should be
addressed here, however.  The first is "the floor", and its function
within Robert's Rules of Order.  Typically, before anything can be
done by anyone, a person must "obtain the floor".  This appears to be
necessitated by the simple fact that a roomful of people all speaking
at the same time, often at cross purposes, is cacophonous instead of
orderly.  By establishing the convention of "the floor" and the
procedures by which it is gained, granted, yielded, and lost, bodies
were able to impose a seriality in their deliberations, and to ensure
that everyone was heard.

  A body that conducts its business via e-mail already has this
seriality, to an extent.  The problem faced by e-mail bodies is not
one of simultanaiety, but temporality; where physical meetings are
forced to deal with multiple overlapping voices, e-mail bodies must
deal with e-mail delays, receipt of mails out of order, and other such
problems introduced by the medium.

  I believe that to a large extent, these problems can be ignored
until and unless they demonstrate themselves to be a significant
impediment to conducting business.

Now, on to Motions.


Motions:

  Typically, all business conducted under RO (Robert's Rules of Order)
proceeds from Motions.  Some of these motions are adequate for our
needs; some are more suited only to physical meetings.  All of the
motions are simply a formal way of saying, "I want", "I propose", etc.
The motions themselves are merely categorizations and formalizations
of the desires a body or its members may wish to express.  The rules
of precedence and the manner in which motions are handled are the
means by which fairness is achieved.

The motions in full are:
     * Fix the Time to which to Adjourn
     * Adjourn
     * Take a Recess
     * Raise a Question of Privilege
     * Call for the Orders of the Day
     * Lay on the Table
     * Previous Question
     * Limit or Extend Limits of Debate
     * Postpone to a Certain Time
     * Commit or Refer
     * Amend
     * Postpone Indefinitely
     * A Main Motion

Not only were these motions designed around the concept of physical
meetings, but they were developed to cover a very broad range of
circumstances and topics.  I'll go over each, how they apply (if they
do), and how we should view them.

* Fix the Time to which to Adjourn

  I view this motion as being identical to our need to decide
  deadlines.  When we are working, it will become evident to the body,
  the Chair(s), or an outside influence, that the work is nearing
  completion, or needs to be so by a certain date.  When this occurs,
  a member of the body or the Chair would motion that a deadline needs
  to be set for such-and-such a date.

* Adjourn

  This is the motion to actually end a meeting.  In our case, this
  would be the motion to stop all work, and disband.  It assumes that
  the motion above was made and accepted, and the date fixed has
  passed with no new motion to extend the date being made.  To call
  for adjournment would mean that the body believes the work is done.

  Some may be concerned that this can be used as a weapon; I've seen
  it cut both ways.  Sometimes, it's used properly; others, it closes
  a meeting before all subtance has been considered.  However, these
  examples are from physical meetings.  As such, there was usually a
  subsequent meeting at which the substance could be considered.
  Here, we don't have that luxury.  Once a Working Group (WG) is
  disbanded, it's gone until it's reconstituted for whatever reason.
  Appropriately, RO addresses this in describing how the motion is
  handled.  RO introduces the concept of privilege with respect to
  motions and their precedence.  Later, I will argue for the
  elimination of the concept in almost every aspect.  All motions
  we'll be discussing here are non-privileged for the sake of this
  document, save one, which I'm about to cover.

* Take a Recess

  As this motion is only of good service to physical meetings, I'd
  like to eliminate it.

* Raise a Question of Privilege

  A Question of Privilege is a question that relates to the rights and
  privileges of the assembly or its members.  In other words, its a
  question about the rules and how they're being applied.  As Seen On
  TV (*grin*), this is the ever-popular "Point of Order".  In practice
  under RO a Question of Privilege is privileged, and takes precedence
  over just about everything.  It's typically used to correct a
  procedural error being made by the Chair or the body.  It's usually
  directed at the Chair because the Chair is the "arbiter of
  fairness", so to speak.  The Chair decides which motions are in
  order or out of order, and keeps track of what's currently on the
  motion stack.  So when someone questions the rules and their
  application, it's usually the Chair who's at fault, as the traffic
  cop for Motions.

  Note that this isn't always a challenge to the Chair's power; it can
  be tough keeping track of all of this in a physical meeting.  Often
  a body member will raise a question of privilege to remind the chair
  of other pending items that take precedence over the current motion.
  For example, the chair might be considering a motion to start
  investigating a sub-area of the chartered topic when a member calls
  a question of privilege to remind the chair of a called and accepted
  deadline just days away.

  Given that most of the questions of privilege raised are ones that
  would be raised anyway in groups at least attempting to be civil,
  one could argue for the elimination of this Motion.  I'm not sure if
  I am comfortable with that, however; the one thing a question of
  privilege does is force the Chair to consider it.  If someone
  questions the procedure and its application, the question of
  privilege *must* be addressed.  It cannot simply be ignored.
  This Motion is the only case in which a privileged Motion would
  exist.  It's a check against the power of the Chair.  Without
  privileged status, it loses much of its bite.

* Call for the Orders of the Day

  This motion is a "demand that the assembly conform to its program or
  order of business".  As such, it's a call from the body or the Chair
  to stay on topic and take things in order.  In practice, this Motion
  is called when there's filibustering taking place, or one or more
  people have gone off on a tangent and show no signs of relevance or
  return to the business of the body.  However, in practice, this Motion
  is called when there is pending business scheduled for a particular
  date and time, and current business threatens to prevent the scheduled
  business from occurring.

  For our purposes, I recommend we keep with the spirit of the motion,
  wherein a call for the Orders of the Day would be a gentle but
  formal reminder that there's work to be done, and that certain
  parties should shut up and get back to the topics at hand. :)

  This places some added importance on the Charter of the group, and
  the order of business as defined both by the Charter and as revised
  by the group.  This is a good thing, I believe.  As I think we've
  all seen, the WGs tend to go off on tangents.  By placing this added
  weight on the formalization of the group's work and the topics to be
  considered, the Chair and the body both gain a bit of control over
  some otherwise wild conversations.

  Of course, this necessitates a more formal approach to the Charter,
  the work it describes, and the goals of the WG as viewed by the body,
  but I think this will work well.

* Lay on the Table

  Think of this motion as indefinite postponement.  When a motion to
  table an item is made and accepted, the item is not considered again
  unless a motion to untable the item is made and accepted at such
  future time.  Any qualification of the motion (e.g., "lay on the
  table until Monday") is a postponement, which isn't the same thing.

  I'd like to do away with this motion, as I've never seen it used as
  anything but a weapon.  Assuming that the body can stay on-topic,
  this motion shouldn't be necessary.  I don't like parliamentary
  games and games of quorum numbers; this motion has always been a
  favorite with both.  I don't see it benefitting us in this medium.

* Previous Question

  This motion is basically a call to vote immediately on the current
  topic.  Assuming everything goes smoothly, this shouldn't be a
  necessary motion.  However, nothing ever goes smoothly.  This motion
  is an indication that the body believes the conversation is no
  longer productive and that further debate would be a waste of time.

  Now, that sounds pretty contentious, and in practice, it can be.
  However, in practice, it would seem that the body as a whole has a
  good sense of when something has and has not reached a point where
  no further debate is necessary.  Often, this motion is a formality,
  because most of the body agrees that a decision needs to be made on
  this topic.  Other times, this can be used as an attempt to ram
  through a proposal without adequate debate.

  That's why this motion requires a supermajority (2/3) affirmative
  vote.
  
  If this motion passes, a vote is taken on the item in question.
  This may seem somewhat unnecessary, but it's another check against
  attempted minority control of the body.  As such, I believe it
  should be kept in.

* Limit or extend limits of debate

  This motion is an intriguing one, because it introduces a topic that
  only a few have touched on so far: How to limit, time, etc. the
  debates that we have.  I don't mean to suggest that such a limit is
  necessitated in all debates.  In practice, deliberative bodies often
  have open-ended debates.

  When limits on a debate are imposed, it's usually when the open
  debate has adequately explored the breadth and some of the depth of
  all sides of the argument.  Usually, what happens is:

    An open debate is held (much like what we have now in the WGs)
    A motion is made for X number of speakers for each side
    The speakers proceed to argue their case for X minutes.
    Debate is closed.  A vote on the issue is usually taken unless a
      motion is made to extend debate.

  What I'd envision for our WGs via e-mail is similar:

    An open debate is held, as we're now doing,
    A motion is made for X number of speakers for each side (they 
      usually volunteer) (This assumes the Chairs can claerly state
      each of the "sides" in the issue, so that people can self-organize)
    The speakers are each allowed one (possibly length-limited) e-mail
      arguing their case.  The e-mail must be submitted within 24
      hours.
    Debate is closed.  A motion to the previous question would now
      be in order, unless someone wants to extend debate or the limits
      on the debate.

  The motion itself is just that: A motion to limit the debate (e.g.,
  the motion in the 2nd step above), or to extend those limits
  (additional speakers, additional time/e-mail, etc.).


* Postpone to a Certain Time

  This motion is exactly what it says it is; a motion to postpone an
  item until a certain specified time.  For example, one could motion
  to postpone an item until a meeting in Santiago.

  In practice, this is used to change the precedence of an item of
  business, and is usually employed to get the item listed as "new
  business" at the next meeting.  Since we don't have "next meetings",
  this loses a lot of its power as a parliamentary tool, and relegates
  this motion to a scheduling tool.  I still think it should be kept,
  because it requires agreement.  Without agreement, this could be
  used as a delaying tactic, and that would be bad.  The alternative
  would be that nothing could be postponed.

* Commit or Refer

  This motion is one made when the question would appropriately be
  addressed by a subgroup.  We've already seen this used informally in
  WG-D.  I think this is a sensible motion.  It adds the requirement
  of agreement of the body.

* Amend

  The motion to Amend is a formal attempt to attach new items to an
  existing motion, or to change the substance of a motion.  In my
  opinion, this motion is relevant when a document is being produced.
  Otherwise, one tends to get into games where you're arguing over one
  word of a motion, and I've lost a lot of sleep putting up with
  those.  We've all seen how semantics become very important in the
  issues we're discussing.  However, it's usually over tangential
  items, or items of substance that are being debated and not formally
  proposed.

  Here we make another very important distinction between physical
  bodies and e-mail bodies.  All of our conversation is via e-mail.
  As such, it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between formally
  proposed wordings (documents, proposals, motions, etc.) and casual
  debate.

  We need to establish clear guidelines that will distinguish these
  two types of communication.  Once that is achieved, this motion
  would *only* apply to the formal documents, proposals, motions,
  etc. where every word counts.  Otherwise, we'll end up arguing about
  the semantics one uses during debate.  While this can be a valid
  debating point, it's simply not necessary to impose a formal
  structure onto quibbling over words 'spoken' in debate.

  When an item is amended, the proposed amendment is announced, and
  the amendment is voted on.  If the amendment is accepted, then the
  amended item's vote is in order; otherwise, the item is voted on as
  it was originally stated.

  This can speed things up.  For example, if someone motions to
  postpone an item until January 10th, and someone else believes a
  majority thinks the postponement is necessary but the date is bad,
  the person could offer an amendment changing the date to December
  1st.  The alternative in this case is to let the original motion be
  voted on, and hope it fails, and then make a new motion with the new
  date.

  The application to formal documents should be obvious.

* Postpose indefinitely

  I feel the same way about this motion as I do about tabling an item.
  I don't think we need this motion.

* A Main Motion

  A main motion is typically a motion to formally introduce a new
  topic, or to accept or adopt a report of a subgroup, or of the body.
  This motion isn't a Motion, per se; it is instead a category for all
  the other motions not already covered:

    Annul
    Appeal
    Call to Order
    Objections
    Division of the Question
    Expunge
    Leave to withdraw or modify 
    Objection to Consideration
    Rescind
    Repeal
    Withdrawl

  For various reasons, I don't think most of these are necessary.
  Withdrawl, Objection, Objection to Consideration should stand,
  however, as Withdrawl is the formal removal of a proposal from the
  body, and both Objections and Objection to Consideration should
  remain for the checks they provide against mob rule and the tyranny
  of silence.

=============END OF FIRST PART============

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org