[wg-d] Threads as Motions Was:(First pass at Robert's Rules)

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

Mark -- 

I personally agree with your conclusion (below) that most of the formal 
details of motions under Roberts Rules -- withdrawals, repeals, etc. -- 
may be unnecessary for online working. Since a list allows distributed, 
asynchronous debate, we do need a way to make motions though and tracking 
them. 

What about the idea of treating a new thread as a motion? As is the 
custom on lists, if it is worth discussing, it will be discussed. If not, 
it will die for lack of interest/support. When a crtical number of 
members have chimed in to the motion/thread, the chairs can call a vote 
or state that they see consensus (subject to having a member disagree and 
call for a full vote).

Thoughts?

    -- Bret

Mark C. Langston wrote:
>* 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.