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 L ETTER BALLOT

Bob, I can go along with your recommendation.  If we don't explicitly reference
Robert's Rules for non-technical votes, we should be sure to state the
requirement of "simple majority of Yes and No votes" to cover that class of

Best regards.

Robert D. Love
Program Manager, IBM ACS - US
Chair IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Working Group
500 Park Offices                   Phone: 919 543-2746
P. O. Box 12195 CNPA/656           Fax: 419 715-0359
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA    E-Mail:

"Grow, Bob" <> on 10/08/99 11:48:41 AM

To:   "'Tony Jeffree'" <>, Robert Love/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:  RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE L

Tony & Bob:

A suitable reference already exist in 5.1.4, "...Roberts Rules of Order
shall be used in combination with these operating rules...".  I don't think
we need to add another Roberts Rules reference to my proposed Technical
Motions section.

--Bob Grow

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree []
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 10:53 PM
Subject: RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE

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
>is governed by Robert's Rules of order".  You may or may not want to put
>paragraph following Bob's words, or where it is indicated that the chair
>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.