response 201 of 281:

Dec 10 00:03 UTC 1995

        RRO is not to be used until such time as it is called for..
as i said earlier, it WILL be called for, when it is needed. Until then,
you are merely advocating the use of superglue for the assemblage of
tab-and-slot boxes. For the moment, the meathod in use ius just fine.
If a time comes when these "tab-and-slot boxes" need something more
to hold them together, fine. But, let's not use a potentially
hazardous chemical bonding agent when tab a into slot b still
works for our purposes.
        And, no, mdw is certainly from this planet, sadly. I wish in
this world that hyper-structured control mechanisms such as
RRO did NOT attract people who love to manipulate the rules..
but such systems do.

response 203 of 281:

Dec 10 07:13 UTC 1995

By george, I'm glad you asked that, Arnold.  The members! Ain't
democracy a wonderful thing?!

response 205 of 281:

Dec 10 19:43 UTC 1995

That question has not yet been properly addressed. Grex grows because
it is technically imperfect (slow, e.g.) and technical changes are seen
as being able to improve its performance, and they are also technically
challenging. It is not growing because of a decision to be a certain size
at a certain date. The growth most resembles the growth of a species
reproducing and filling its niche, until such time as it becomes resource
or competition limited - that is, unplanned. Of course, we are told by
some that that is how Grex was founded - to be open, free and unplanned
(and why efforts at planning struggle to exist). There is, in fact,
an interesting dichotomy in attempting to create and preserve an
organization, via a system of governance (with article, by laws, and
rules of order), whose reason for existence was premised in anarchism.

response 207 of 281:

Dec 11 00:34 UTC 1995

Re #205, Rane, I think you're beginning to catch on. :-)

response 209 of 281:

Dec 11 17:17 UTC 1995

re193-194:
        yes marcus, good people could _think_ they have a consensus when they
are actually saying/thinking different things.  somewhere up there someone
said motions are sometimes written down _after the meeting_ ("you know what
we just passed...write it out so it makes sense").  this would fly in the face
of due process, since all people voting may have not been voting on the same
_idea/concept/issue_.
        when you describe the US Congress as your example, you must realize
that _the congress_ has adopted its own rules _which supercede RRO_ and allow
them to pervert our system for their own ends.  you also must know how much
$$$ is involved, and how many different interests are thrown together in
considering every issue.
        if the "founding fathers" (of the USA...not referring to grex, heh)
didn't use a form of RRO, or more accurately for the time, Parliamentary
Procedure, they would've never come to consensus and we might be living on
a continent with over 50 separate nations!  But, there was a way to come to
written agreements which considered majority rule and still protected minority
interests.  furthermore, the agreement was _immediately amended_ by the Bill
of Rights, which included issues that prevented a consensus on the original
Constitution.  How many of your people surveyed would say they would scrap
the Bill of Rights if they had a chance?
        
        there are good people, and there are evil people.  grex enjoys
participation of lots of good people.  rules of conducting grex business will
have no effect on that.  it will likely make it easier for some to contribute,
and more difficult for some others, but that is no relation to the good/evil
qualities of those people.

        "avoiding legal liability is not a sound basis to design any decision
making system".  I AGREE.  but, imo, it is a sound basis to _adopt_ a decision
making system which has been designed, used, and continually de-bugged for
many years in an attempt to refine a process which better protects fairness
and the rights of the minority in a majority rule environment.

response 211 of 281:

Dec 12 08:20 UTC 1995

I certainly never said or meant "motions written down after the
meeting".  Kinda silly to complain at me for something somebody else
said, dontcha think?  I don't believe the board has ever had a problem
remembering what they agreed to; which says to me at least that whatever
informal procedures they use to decide on what they're deciding on work
(and I think you'll find, if you investigate, that they're really not
all that much different at all from RRO).

Re US congress vs. RRO - read the introduction to RRO.  It's quite clear
which one's the cart & which the horse.  I believe a better means of
understanding the unification of the states lies in a study of the
socio-economic conditions of the times, not the precise form of
parliementary procedure used.

Re Bill of Rights - true, too many people don't appreciate it.  However,
the failure of the american educational system in this regard seems
highly irrelevant to the issue of the usefulness of RRO in grex.

I've seen many small community organizations go through a process of
"fossilization", in which the membership at large becomes partitioned
from a small ruling minority.  A lot of this is due to pure human
nature, but RRO really seems to accellerate this trend.  It is
interesting to note that RRO was mainly codified by a general who would
not have been interested in grass roots democracy, but rather in top
down hierarchical decision making.  Viewed in those terms, RRO does just
want it wants.  Viewed in terms of what I think we've all historically
valued on Grex, it makes no sense at all.  There *are* useful ideas in
RRO - and there are organizations where RRO makes lots of sense.  But
just because a little of something is good does not mean a lot of
something is good, and in this case, I think RRO is medicine that can
kill.

response 213 of 281:

Dec 12 21:30 UTC 1995

Well, I didn't mean to insinuate that you talked about writing down motions
after they had been voted on, just that it was brought into this discussion
w-a-y up there, and I took for granted (perhaps in error) that was factual,
having never personally attended a grex business meeting.  Sorry if the
example was misleading.  It seems, at least, motions are carefully worded and
recorded before a vote, which is one of my great concerns when it comes to
conducting business, and avoiding apparent consensus when in fact there is
confusion.  Again, that doesn't seem to be the case (for now) at grex.
        Since you put it to me, I have reviewed the introduction of RRO (I've
read it several times, but not in recent years).  True, RRO was fashioned
after the US House rules, but not copied from them.  But the genesis seems
to me different from what you described.  Beginning with early principles of
parliamentary law generating from the House of Commons 6 points are made:
-one subject at a time
-alternate between opposite points of view
-require a call for the negative vote in every case
-decorum and avoidance of personalities in debate
-confinment of debate to the merits of the pending question
-division of a question.
        It was the local variance in the manner these rules were adapted for
use which was one of the reasons RRO was writen.  And, the 1st Continental
Congress's accomplishments in its first two days demonstrate the power of
usefulness of such rules.
        The introduction goes on to discuss Jeffersons manual, and Cushings
manual, as I'm sure you are aware.  Robert had been travelling around the
country, doing lots of church work and other organizational stuff, and saw
a need for a set of common rules..."Even if a society were in a position to
work out a satisfactory set (of rules, as proposed by Cushing), this would
only create further multiplicity.  *The need was the reverse - to enable
civic-minded people to belong to several organizations or to move to new
localities without constantly encountering different parliamentary rules*."
        This last point is an important one, and very relevant to grex.  If
grex is indeed a community-based organization, and it has linked itself to
the world-community through the Internet as well, it must be able to
accomodate all of the civic-minded people who happen to become involved. 
Many, if not most, of these people will also be (or have been) active in other
organizations, most of which accept some parliamentary authority (RRO being
the most common, by far).  These folks already know the rules.  For them to
feel welcome (in an administrative sense) to participate they need to be able
to use what they already know, without needing to learn new "politics" of new
rules of order.
        Grex exists in a world of real laws, real people, real evil and real
human frailties.  The more it reaches out to the community, the more it needs
a _pre-determined_ set of rules for dealing with the unanticipated. 
Otherwise, rules will be adopted under duress when that time comes, and great
consternation can ensue.  Rules may even be created in a "re-invent the wheel"
sort of way each and every time something comes up.  This certainly does not
lead to continuity, fairness or equal treatment of views.

        Rules of order do not have to impose *any* real change on the way grex
conducts business, it just ratifys it.
        It's obvious that I am an advocate for rules of order.  Reviewing the
introduction of RRO only reinforced that feeling for me.  I was beginning to
doubt, I must admit, why I was feeling so protective of order.  Now I am
renewed in my personal feeling.  I'm not so passionate, however, to want to
even attempt to "jam it down the collective grex throat" if it's not what the
BoD/users/members want.  I've found grex to be a fine place to visit and hope
to have it available for a long time to come.  (read this as; we're really
on the same side).

response 215 of 281:

Dec 13 01:41 UTC 1995

The word I used was "fossilize" not "kill".  Here we have a problem with
the English language - or, what I see as "life" Rane sees as "cancer".
What I see as "rigid unthinking" Rane sees as "strength".  I have in
fact seen organizations go through much more difficult times, even
ending up in court.  I am quite sure that the reason Grex has had an
easy time of it so far is entirely due to Grex's organization.  One of
the first things I've learned as a computer programmer is, "if it works,
don't break it".

It seems to me that rickb ought to attend before finding fault.  Most of
the procedural problems he claims lack of RRO would inevitably produce
have not in fact happened.

So far as "civic minded" goes - whoa - who says we *want* to be civic
minded?  In fact, we want to be "community" minded - where "community" =
the users of this system, ie, the virtual community this system has
accreted about itself.  That is, we want a system that is responsive to
the needs of its users, and we want a system that encourages users to
participate in the decision making process.  If being "civic minded"
means to reach out to people in other civic organizations, who aren't
necessarily familiar with, or value the principles of *this* system -
then I think that's almost certainly something we *don't* want to do.
That is not to say there is not value in working with other
organizations - indeed, there is.  But we do need to keep in mind, at
the same time, that our primary interest is the users of *this* system.
There are other organizations that already exist to further those other
civic goals - HVCN springs to mind instantly.  Grex's peculiar
organization does not seem to have been a handicap in terms of grex
people helping out in HVCN, if anything, it seems to have been somewhat
of an asset.

response 217 of 281:

Dec 13 14:05 UTC 1995

*What?*!!  I don't remember what you say in the first paragraph of #216 ever
happening.  Could I put you on the spot and ask you to name some examples?

response 219 of 281:

Dec 13 16:58 UTC 1995

So, you don't care if the procedures in the U.S. Constitution are followed,
just so long as a vocal majority agree on the outcome? 
  
Whoa! Calm down, folks. I can't cite chapter and verse for the events
in which heedless informality occurred...it was all part of joking
around during some meetings. However I am very sensitive to departures
from fair procedures, and most others are much less so (as indicated
by their lack of experience with RRO). 

And - on the contrary, Dave. Objections *should* be made when proper
procedures are not being followed, as it means some consideration for
others or fairness are being overlooked. I have usually not made such
objections even when I notice such, simply because those not imbued
with the principles of following proper procedures consider it nitpicking
(especially when they are in the majority), and the issue is not going
to make an important difference.

Having the rules on the books but not being conversant with their use
is much the same as not having them on the books. I have been encouraging
the adoption of RRO as the rules of order for the Grex board in an
operational sense - not just writing the phrase into the bylaws. I do
not agree with the notion of having rules of order on the books but
intentionally ignoring them. However, mistakes are made and departures
from rules of order do occur - and RRO has a rule for that: what the board
did even if in violation of a rule of order is still valid if no one raised
the objection (this is not true of violations of bylaws or articles). 

response 221 of 281:

Dec 13 18:43 UTC 1995

   Ricky you said the contents of #213 very well.

   Unforunately, I don't buy it.  In order for Grex to be able to
interface with others, we need to talk.  Talk, the art of discussion
seems to be undertuilized in many organizations, and the entire
concept of consensus seems to be forgotten in many, many organizations
today.  No thinking person would find it hard to adapt to the current
system of whatyouwanttocallit that Grex uses.  They might be uncomfortable
with it, but they could adapt quite readily.

   I have had several people tell me after a Grex board meeting that
they attended out of curiosity say they've never seen anything quite
like it.  At least two of those people were fairly dumbstuck at the
concept of not using RRO, and the freewheeling style of the meetings.
These people universally commented on a) the lack of rancor at our
meetings, b) the amount of issues we were able to deal with, c) the
feeling of openness.  This happened at least four times over the four
years I've been on the board.

   There was another comment, perhaps from Arnold about things are OK
now because we have good people (thanks) on the board currently, but
what happens if that isn't so?  My answer to that is really pretty
simple: we're screwed.  We're screwed becuase we'll have short-sighted
people on board, or whatever; *not* becuase we have an imcomplete set
of rules set up for things.  Whether we use RRO or not a bad board can
really mess things up.  The best solution to this problem or course, is
to get good people in during elections.  A difficult proposition to be
sure, but a lot better then trying to use the mechanics of RRO to protect
the organization from problems.

response 223 of 281:

Dec 14 00:18 UTC 1995

Well, if RRO is not the right thing for Grex, would it at least be possible
to state, in writing, what rules Grex does operate under. If they are
general and have rounded corners, that is ok. It does seem to me that those
who seem to "know" the rules have a moral obligation to pass those rules down
to the future directors, and to let your members know the parameters of the
decision making proces. Saying we always just did it and it worked seems to
be more a function of personality than structure. Which is fine as long as
you have good personalities. If it is just the present Articles and Bylaws,
and the details are left to ad hoc decisions and consensus, then people will
know that is the deal. It does not particularly bother me, with the present
personalities here. <Grexbunker doors slam shut>.