Subject: RE: Robert's Rules (Re: ADs who are also WG chairs)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:44:59 -0700

> serious question:
> 
> do you have an example of a version of Robert's rules of 
> order that has 
> successfully been applied to mailing lists?

This was the subject of some study by my group when I was at IETF. We ran an
Open Meeting over the Internet for Vice President Al Gore.

That was a moderated forum using an adapted form of Recher's dialectic,
however the moderation was not essential in that case.

> RR has a number of concepts that are hard to apply to a 
> mailing list - 
> recognition of speakers by the chair, expulsion from the room 
> of disorderly 
> members, voting in real time on points of procedure, for 
> instance. I'd be 
> interested in hearing of examples of successful adaptations.

Some of the rules are not appropriate because the constraints are not. For
example it is not necessary to require recognition by the chair since it is
possible for more than one person to speak at once.

The key point is what to do with respect to decisions and what to do with in
person and conference call meeting time.

What we do in OASIS in most cases is to run with an abreviated version of
the rules except when there is an actual controversy and someone wants to
make sure process is followed.

		Phill

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:56:05 +0200

<note - this is offtopic, but seems informative... begging indulgence from 
the chairs....>

--On fredag, juli 04, 2003 09:44:59 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> This was the subject of some study by my group when I was at IETF. We ran
> an Open Meeting over the Internet for Vice President Al Gore.
>

do you have a reference? I'm not familiar with Recher's dialectic...

> example it is not necessary to require recognition by the chair since it
> is possible for more than one person to speak at once.
>
> The key point is what to do with respect to decisions and what to do with
> in person and conference call meeting time.
>

that's been my impression with most places that claim to follow RR too - 
that unless there's a conflict, things jut run in an ad-hoc fashion, but 
that once there is conflict, one has the ruleset to fall back on to ensure 
orderly and clear decision-making.

And I actually think that's an eminently sensible way to run meetings, and 
wish we knew how to make mailing lists do that.

                  Harald

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 11:34:12 +0900

Some parts of this conversation would be just right for the
Solutions list.  I might even be able to contribute.

a.

ps. but you are indulged. :-)

On lördag, jul 5, 2003, at 01:56 Asia/Seoul, Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
wrote:

> <note - this is offtopic, but seems informative... begging indulgence 
> from the chairs....>
>
> that's been my impression with most places that claim to follow RR too 
> - that unless there's a conflict, things jut run in an ad-hoc fashion, 
> but that once there is conflict, one has the ruleset to fall back on 
> to ensure orderly and clear decision-making.
>
> And I actually think that's an eminently sensible way to run meetings, 
> and wish we knew how to make mailing lists do that.
>
>                  Harald
>