response 175 of 281:

Dec 3 23:29 UTC 1995

Now I am getting scared! ;-)

response 177 of 281:

Dec 4 05:59 UTC 1995

I was mainly pointing out opportunities for input from members and
nonmembers in attendance. However the reason for the particular common
procedure I gave is to give time for decent consideration while still
proceeding rapidly ahead. Between reports and later "business", people
can be concocting their motions "off line". Grex presently spends a
great deal of time awkwardly inventing motion language (and then telling
the secretary to fix it up... :>). 

response 179 of 281:

Dec 4 19:07 UTC 1995

A simplified approach to ranes example is to simply "suspend the rules" for a
period of informal discussion.  Then, call the board back to order to actually
vote on the business at hand (quickly and effectively).  It is only the
actual boards action which is legally binding, and this kind of example
allows for maximun open-ness of meetings and efficiency of legal action.

The reason(s) there _are_ things like Committee of the Whole, and other
tools within RRO is just for such circumstances.  But you don't necessarily
have to follow each and every stipulation verbatim to keep the business end
of the meetings (ie; voting) "legal" under RRO.

Oh, btw, _I'd_ object to any re-wording of adopted motions outside of some
further adoption of the re-wording in a formal sense.  This is exactly the
danger ...danger of being 'too informal'.  It is the motions which are adopted
which legally bind the corp and define it's legal actions.  We all know how
lawyers can twist words/meanings to opposing sides of an issue <sorry arnold>.

Motions should be well thought out and worded correctly _before_ a vote is
taken, otherwise what is thought to be a consensus might just be confusion
in disguise.

response 181 of 281:

Dec 5 08:13 UTC 1995

A motion to suspend the rules does not recess the formal board meeting,
but only takes up something out of order or "suspends" minor rules of
order. To "consider the question informally" only suspends the rule that
no member may speak more than twice to a question, and then only after all
members wishing to speak have done so once. The Grex board always proceeds
"informally" in this sense. If you want to have informal (non-binding on
the board) votes, you need to consider the matter in a (quasi) committee
of the whole. [All boards I've served on normally consider all questions
informally: I remember only once when the chair ruled that the regular
rule would be used - and, amazingly enough, each board member spoke once,
and none wanted to speak twice - boy, did that speed things up.]

response 183 of 281:

Dec 5 11:58 UTC 1995

Actually, Arnold, I'm hoping Rane goes on a good bit longer.

response 185 of 281:

Dec 5 14:42 UTC 1995

In the verbatim translations rane is correct.  However, I've served on
boards where "suspend the rules" was interpreted to include _all rules,
including RRO_ for purpose of informally discussing, polling, and formulating
motion language, etc...  It amounted to a recess of the board meeting, which
was then called back to order for the stating of the motion and voting.

I think this would be easily adaptable to Grex business, from what I've
been seeing here.

response 187 of 281:

Dec 5 18:49 UTC 1995

I beg your pardon, sir, but my remark was not snide. ;-)

Seriously, the more you expain about how RRO would work at our Board
meetings, the better.  That way when your proposal is put to a vote folks
will be able to make an informed decision.  So I welcome your comments.

response 189 of 281:

Dec 6 02:06 UTC 1995

They're less cryptic because they're in English?  (*Sniggle*)

The whole reason computer languages got invented is because when people
tried to describe complicated mathematical algorithms in English, they
became exceedingly hard to understand.  English turns out to be a bad
language to describe complicated procedures, and attempts to describe
them quickly turn into a cryptic quagmire of self-referential language,
arbitrary parties of the 1st and 2nd part, definitional language to
resolve possible ambiguities, a tense disaster zone, and worse.  The
resulting mess would scare the cockles out of even the most case
hardened civil justice lawyer.  It's no accident that those languages
that are most "english-like" (Cobol) have earned a reputation for being
the most painful to program in.

Computer languages are perfectly easy to understand; what's hard is to
grasp the *kind* of thinking that's required to analyze a problem in
terms of simple primitive rules that when ruthless applied, will solve a
complex problem.  Anyone who can do that will have no trouble with
computer languages, anyone who can't will have much trouble.  The reason
why so many people find this hard is because we don't use ruthless rules
in our day to day lives, we use an awful lot of intuition, instinct,
feelings, and a lot of other "fuzzy" stuff, mostly subconsciously, to
deal with life.  Generally speaking, we haven't the least idea why we
did something, or why it worked, and if we do attempt to analyze nearly
anything we do, it often turns out to be dreadfully complicated.  The
simplest way to realize this is to try to set down a computer program to
do anything we recognize as "needing smarts".  A simple example (only
because the rules are so clear) is chess - it turns out that computer

RRO is a game, just like chess.  A few people are *very* good at it.
Most people don't want to play.

response 191 of 281:

Dec 6 07:05 UTC 1995

The usual bylaw declaration adopting RRO says that RRO applies except were
rules adopted by the board apply. However there is great danger of
suspending RRO wholesale by "suspending" them, even if suspending requires
a 2/3 vote: all parliamentary protection of the minority would be lost
too. Also, there are some rules that cannot be suspended. In regard to
suspending the *all* rules to permit informal discussion, it is unclear
when you return to the rules. The advantage of using "committee of the
whole" is that one knows when one enters and leaves that. 

I appreciate what Marcus is driving at, although I would take issue with
calling RRO a game, like chess. It is a procedure for discussing complex
issues and arriving at decisions in an efficient manner, while protecting
the minority. I take that as a pretty serious responsibility. 

I suppose everyone has at least heard of people indeed "playing games"
with RRO. That is analogous to people writing destructive scripts in unix
(or whatever). It is not surprising that, just as there are twits in
cyberspace, there are also in board rooms. 

In response to sidhe - RRO imply no "tedious structure". It has been
pointed out that they are just tools that one picks up when one needs
them. It has also been pointed out that it would be better to have the
tools at hand *before* "the Board is divisive enough" to need them. 

response 193 of 281:

Dec 6 21:13 UTC 1995

Marcus also makes a good point for use of RRO in conducting the business
affairs of cyberspace, inc.  Just as he describes, most of us use intuition, i
instinct, feelings and that "fuzzy stuff" in out informal dealings with life.
These are the same tools we use when we participate in informal discussions
and "arrive" at a "consensus".  We might not all be 'on the same page' in the
final analysis, and that leaves a great deal of room for conflict ("that's
not what we were supposed to do!", or, "that's not what I thought we said!",
or worse yet, "well, I guess _my_ ideas are meaningless!").

IMO, the main purpose for using RRO in an informal way is to formalize only
the _actions_ (read=> motions adopted) of the Board.  A good chairperson will
protect the rights of the minority view even without RRO, and a bad one will
likely find a way to suppress them even with RRO (if s/he is expert at the
politics game).

It remains important, however, for motions to be carefully worded, clearly
stated and dibated, and voted upon following due process, in order to
maintain continuity and protect the decision makers from undue legal liability
even when they are performing in good faith.

response 195 of 281:

Dec 7 13:25 UTC 1995

For information and consideration: About a week ago plus the Ypsilanti School
Board created some controversy for itself in adopting a new set of bylaws.
Two interesting points as reported by the Ann Arbor News, Ypsilanti Edition
- the bylaws siginificantly restrict, in the opinion of some, the right of
the public to participate in meetings and to have their comments made partof
the record, and the bylaws adopt RRO _only_ as a _guide_, but not as binding
rules for conduct of the board. I thought the juxtaposition of these concepts
was interesting. Guess they don't need all that legal-like mumbo jumbo either.
;-)

response 197 of 281:

Dec 8 01:20 UTC 1995

One outstanding example springs instantly to mind: US Congress.  There
are thousands of other good examples: the boards of many (if not indeed
most) commercial organizations.  Of course, in these organizations, the
people involved are *supposed* to be selfish.  A lot of the people
involved in these are very rich, because they have learned to make very
efficient use of RRO to distract attention from hidden agendas, nearly
always for avowedly selfish ends.

This line of reasoning is no stranger to us here either; even in this
very item, you can find examples of "greedy logic"--logic based on the
assumption that the selfish axioms of commercial business apply here as
well.  Making assumptions is a dangerous art in the practice of logic;
in the computer world, it's the leading cause of bugs.

response 199 of 281:

Dec 8 02:09 UTC 1995

Do I?  Ask the average american what he thinks of the average
politician, and see how many of these words you can check: rapacious,
selfish, rich, sneaky, and slimy.  If, instead, you were to ask that
same american how important he thinks leadership & vision are in a
politican, and if those are qualities he looks for when voting, & odds
are, I should think, that they would rank pretty highly on most peoples
lists.  Lastly, supposing you were to instead ask that person to define
leadership, vision, the american capitalist system, liberty, success,
freedom, & rugged individualism, and see if you can tell the difference
between those definitions and those for rapacious, selfish, rich,
sneaky, and slimy.

Now where, pray tell, did I exagurate?  Too bad we can't all plant bugs
in the walls of our illustrious politicians, to spy on what they're
*really* going to do with our money.