response 226 of 281:

Dec 14 14:32 UTC 1995

Re 223: Okay, here's a shot at describing Grex's meeting procedures:

About a week ahead of the meeting, the chair posts a tentative agenda item
in the co-op conference and an announcement of the meeting in the motd.
People can add agenda entries by entering responses in the agenda item.

On the day of the meeting, the board gets together at the appointed time
and place.  Quorum is 5 of the 7 board members.  If fewer than 5 board
members show up, we generally have an "informational" meeting instead of an
official board meeting.  An informational meeting is mostly the same as an
official meeting, except there are more digressions, less gavel banging,
and no official motions.

If the secretary isn't present, someone is designated to take notes and
later post them on-line in the coop conference.

If new people are present, we often go around the table and introduce
everybody.

The chair bangs the gavel and calls the board to order.

The chair reads off each agenda topic.  Some topics are reports, in which
case the person making the report makes a report.  Other topics require
discussion and a decision, in which case the board discusses the topic,
hopefully with input from everybody who is present at the meeting (I try
very hard to be sure everybody who wants to speak gets a chance to be heard)
and writes wording for a motion.  One board member proposes the motion.
Another seconds it.  The secretary writes down the exact wording of the
motion.  The chair asks people in favor of the motion to raise their hands.
Ditto for people against, and then for people abstaining.  If everybody is
in favor, the chair generally doesn't ask about the other categories.

When the agenda has been exhausted, including the "New Business" item that
lets people introduce topics that were not on the agenda, the chair bangs
the gavel and closes the meeting.

Various people generally hang out and yak for a while at this point.

The secretary goes home and within a few days writes up the meeting minutes
and posts them to the coop conference.


Howzzat?

response 228 of 281:

Dec 14 18:54 UTC 1995

There often is discussion, and rewording of the motion, after it is first
written down.

response 230 of 281:

Dec 15 07:09 UTC 1995

After entering #227, it occurred to me that it would partially serve
the purpose of getting more members more closely involved with the
business of the board if motions expected to be considered at the meeting
were listed in the agenda. This would be a step toward the "on line"
meeting format that has been discussed elsewhere. While it would not
be interactive, at least more members would know what is being proposed,
which the current agenda format omits.

Re #229: that's what I suggested, in connection with the discussion
of reports. The normal procedure for attaining a refined motion reflecting
a majority perspective is through amendments. The consensus route is
what I have observed leading to a suppresssion of minority opinion, since
everyone more or less (tries to) talk at once, and the direction that seems
to be getting the most clamour is taken to be the consensus. It is rather
intimidating to the shy, as the Consensus Steamroller chugs along.

response 232 of 281:

Dec 15 09:43 UTC 1995

I actually agree with what Rane said in #225 - that it would be a bad
idea to "say" we have RRO, and then to ignore it.

The by-laws do in fact require that the BOD to publicize the time,
place, & agenda of each BOD meeting, to take and publish minutes of each
BOD meeting, and also generally requires the BOD to keep users informed
on issues.

response 234 of 281:

Dec 15 17:17 UTC 1995

Re #231: no, not cumbersome at all. *Someone* has to eventually create a
(nearly) appropriate motion. Even if done by "consensus", the conversion
to words-in-proper-order takes thought and time, writing down, and a
motion. Even then motions may not be "perfect", and amendments are normal
to fine tune. Incidentally, the best of the amendment motions is to
substitute - replace the main motion entirely with an alternative. The
secret to making proper procedures go smoothly is familiarity and facility
with the language. It is just like any language - programning included: it
works better when one knews it better. 

response 236 of 281:

Dec 16 18:31 UTC 1995

I, too, think it's OK to have discussion prior to making a motion (concept
which is not in agreement with RRO) in the less-than-formal meetings such as
described by valerie.  This does permit potential amendments to be
incorporated into the main motion, which should still be carefully worded,
and written down, before a vote is taken.  Such 'special rules of order' are
allowed for under RRO and can be quite easily accomodated _without ignoring
the rro stipulation_.  Result...no real net change in the way grex conducts
business, but a commonly known and available authority cited for the
consideration of disputes.
        Why is this important?  Under the current system, if someone were to
object to the consideration of an issue (such as remmers discussed) or the
procedure of how an issue was dispensed (rane, I think), there would be no
official recourse against a BoD/Chairperson who hears the objection and
ignores it.  With a cited authority like RRO, _the objection calls the
authority into play_ and the BoD/Chairperson is no longer at liberty to merely
ignore the objection.
        Small point?  Nit-picking?  Maybe, but not if you feel strongly enough
to be the one objecting.  This may not (is not) a problem with the fine people
of the grex BoD at this time, but how will this be ensured for the future of
grex?
        Regarding "civic-minded" vs "community-minded", for the purpose of
inviting cooperation from a wide range of individuals with varying backgrounds
these are similar, if not the same thing.
        Inever said there were problems that need RRO to fix them, I admit I
am not aware of problems of the current system, and I've only responded to
discussion of situations which have been posed, and/or could be reasonably
anticipated with growth of the user population.  I certainly agree that "if
it ain't broke, don't fix it", or more acuratly as stated by marcus, "if it
works, don't break it".  There _is_ a difference.  My professional credo
includes "first, do no harm".  But, adopting RRO does not have to cause any
harm, or break anything which is already working.  It can be a way to deal
with some things which may not have occured yet, but could happen in the
future.  I'm no programmer, but I've got to expect that any good programmer
anticipates potential problems and writes his/her code to avoid or deal with
conflicts.  That _improves_ the program, it doesn't break it.

response 238 of 281:

Dec 19 22:07 UTC 1995

re: 233 Remmers, I agree with your concern that things be discussed before
they are allowed to be pushed through for a vote.  My perception so far has
been that these things are happening when the thing being brought up seems
so "non-controversial" that no one stops to remember that it's New Business
and should be set aside for discussion.  Now that doesn't mean that it *is*
non-controversial, or that it should be pushed through because the board
doesn't think it will matter to the membership...and I encourage you, and
everyone else, to help us watchdog ourselves until we build a new habit around
putting New Business on hold for discussion once it's brought up.

As to the idea that adopting RRO will make it more congenial for people
experienced in running other sorts of organizations to serve on the GREX
board, I don't necessarily see that as an asset.  Before serving on a board
of directors effectively, one has to understand the function that BoD serves
in its organization, one needs to understand the culture of the BoD and the
organization, and one needs a familiarity with the special issues and concerns
of the organization that the BoD serves.  Learning a new (flexible) method
of holding meetings should not be all that much of a handicap.  If it is, I
would have to question the flexibility of the person to adapt to the new sorts
of concerns serving on the board of a conferencing is bound to bring up.

Yes.  It might mean that a couple of meetings are spent trying to get
accustomed to the new way of doing things...but anyopne serious about serving
on the board will have attended those first couple of meeting before being
elected.  Therefore it is no net loss.

response 240 of 281:

Dec 20 13:52 UTC 1995

Re voting on things that weren't on the agenda: In general, most of the things
that this happens with are along the lines of voting to allocate smallish sums
of money for small pieces of hardware, such as new memory boards.  Those
things aren't controversial, and often it would handicap Grex to have to wait
a month to add the item to the agenda just so the board can rubber stamp the
request the next month.  I agree that controversial, non-urgent, items
shouldn't be voted on if they come up under New Business.  But I'm not
comfortable making a blanket statement that the board shouldn't ever vote on
things that come up there.

response 242 of 281:

Dec 25 01:11 UTC 1995

   Thank you Valerie.  It all depends on whats being considered for
purchase.  I was the one who raised John's objections more than others,
I think (correct me if I'm wrong, John!).
   I've been guilty of making a note to myself for bringing something
up in the beforehand agenda items, only to forget and then remember it
during the meeting when I'm there.  That happened one or two board meetings
ago.  I would certainly hope that the new board will not take a small
item and hold it up for a month's discussion if it is something that
is needed.
   Note that I'm not talking about something major, like buying a brand
new Sun-4/<something>, or anything like that.

response 244 of 281:

Dec 26 18:34 UTC 1995

Well. Well. Well. While I have been dabating to become a paying member of 
Grex, I have tried to follow this debate with interest. I am not, as yet, sure
why structure is so threatening to Grex. If I invest treasure in Grex, what,
exactly, am I supporting? 

response 246 of 281:

Dec 26 20:10 UTC 1995

That is not my worry. Not in the least. If you don't have the "same set of
rules" then what set of rules do you have? "Fair" "reasonable" and "reasonably
consistent" are, with all due respect, weasel words. Much the same as used
by lawyers and judges when aserting an agenda. The words sound pleasant to
my ears, but give me little comfort when I think about them before dawn. If
the rules are so benign, they cannot be threatened by specific articulation,
or can they? <just debating you, scg - you are not some meglomaniac>

response 248 of 281:

Dec 27 13:26 UTC 1995

Look, there's no hidden agenda here on Grex.  Everything's an open book
and you can read all about it here in coop or show up at one of the
board meetings to witness things first-hand.  If what you see still
makes you uncomfortable, then I don't think there's anything we can do
to make you comfortable.

Is the flap over Robert's Rules of Order really that important a
discussion?  Cyberspace Communications is a very small group with a
near-miniscule budget.  Seriously, let's keep things in perspective
here.