Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> 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
Robert's Rules.


Score for today:

Karl: 2,  Kent 0.

	--karl--