Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE LETTER BALLOT

Vic -

It was Bob that was suggesting the wording change, not me.  If you read my
Email, I was arguing against mandating RR as part of our WG operating rules
at all.


At 09:34 08/10/99 +0200, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>Why is the non-technical motion governed explicitly by Robert's Rules, as
>you proposed. All  order is governed by Robert's Rules, even technical
>motions, although our "by-laws" specify that 75 % support is need for such
>motion to pass.
>So, why do you want to add the qualification?
>> ----------
>> From: 	Tony Jeffree[]
>> Sent: 	Friday, October 08, 1999 07:53
>> To:
>> Cc:
>> Subject: 	RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE
>> At 15:07 07/10/99 -0400, wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I wholeheartedly agree with Bob's words.  I would additionally add one
>> >additional paragraph that explicitly states that "Voting on non-technical
>> issues
>> >is governed by Robert's Rules of order".  You may or may not want to put
>> that
>> >paragraph following Bob's words, or where it is indicated that the chair
>> decides
>> >which issues are technical and which are not.
>> >
>> An observation.
>> I know that some working groups enjoy the adversarial atmosphere that can
>> be generated by clever manipulation of meetings and the over-use of
>> procedural mechanisms such as are embodied in Robert's Rules.
>> Historically,
>> 802.1 has not been one of those working groups; our operational approach
>> has been to attempt to resolve issues rather than to invoke procedures. If
>> there is an issue, taking a vote or indulging in procedural devices will
>> not make it go away, so it is a smart move to resolve the issue first.
>> The
>> vote then becomes the formal confirmation, rather thatn the attempted
>> means
>> of achieving resolution. Consequently, in the time I have been attending
>> 802.1 meetings (since 1984), I cannot recall any occasion where it was
>> either desirable or necessary to invoke Roberts Rules.  For these reasons,
>> while I would in no way object to other working groups making use of RR as
>> they see fit, I would be very concerned if Robert's Rules were enshrined
>> in
>> the operating rules of 802 as the basis for making decisions in WG
>> meetings.
>> Regards,
>> Tony