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.
Regards,
Tony
At 09:34 08/10/99 +0200, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>
>Tony,
>
>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?
>
>Vic
>> ----------
>> From: Tony Jeffree[SMTP:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>> Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 07:53
>> To: rdlove@us.ibm.com
>> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE
>> CHANGE LETTER BALLOT
>>
>>
>> At 15:07 07/10/99 -0400, rdlove@us.ibm.com 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
>>
>