|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 23 new of 97 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 75 of 97:
| 
Nov 14 02:26 UTC 1996 |
Misti has it right - "with a military mindset" is just what I mean.
For those that have trouble seeing RRO in a military sense, I offer this
comparson: Arthur's Knights of the Round Table. The knights themselves
are roughly equivalent to the "participants" in an RRO meeting. The
King, seneschal, etc., correspond to the chairman, various officers,
secretary, & parliamentarian of RRO. Not just anyone could come in and
sit down at the round table; indeed, it was a very exclusive club, & it
was worth your life to attempt to join them. The same is true of RRO;
not just anyone can speak. In fact, outsiders basically only get to
speak at the specific invitation of one of the regular members of the
"inner circle" with RRO. Even in today's army, there is a very rigid
order of how to do *everything*, and the same is equally true with RRO.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 76 of 97:
|
Nov 14 04:12 UTC 1996 |
"Does the hostility and confrontation of traditional rules of order turn your
people off? Lean the new techniques of negotiation of consensus. ..."
THis is from the introductio of "Welty's Book of Procedures for Meetings,
Boards, Committies and Officers" written by Joel David Welty, a longtime
leader in the coop movement. It can be ordered from Joel at 5902 S Carter
Road, Freeland, MI 48623. Phone him at 517 496 3588 for current pricing.
Should be around $10 plus tax and shipping.
For those who really want procedures. Otherwise, complain away right here
in this item about RRO and its problems. <grin>
|
void
|
|
response 77 of 97:
|
Nov 14 05:15 UTC 1996 |
what's wrong with a talking stick? ;)
|
tsty
|
|
response 78 of 97:
|
Nov 14 07:50 UTC 1996 |
woodn't know ...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 79 of 97:
|
Nov 14 08:05 UTC 1996 |
I agree that RRO is not designed to reach a *strict* consensus (everyone
in agreement), but properly used, they give the majority the power to
decide while respecting the rights of the minority, with plenty of
opportunities for the minority to make their point, including to postpone
a decision until there is more of a consensus (in the looser sense).
Continuing my analogy of RRO to Picospan - Picospan can also be misused,
for "flaming", intimidation, coarseness (...just visit m-net...). In both
cases it is the skill of the users that make these tools benevolent.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 80 of 97:
|
Nov 14 20:29 UTC 1996 |
re: #77 a talking stick. The stick helps maintain equal access to talking
time. What it doesn't do is help bring highly divergent views to a workable
solution. Reaching consensus by going 'round and 'round the table is a
<sometimes> slow, unworkable process with no method of bringing closure,
espcially if there is only one person holding tightly to a very different
worldview.
|
davel
|
|
response 81 of 97:
|
Nov 14 23:05 UTC 1996 |
Right. When things get sufficiently polarized that you can't get consensus,
and people's commitment to getting their own way starts to exceed their desire
to reach a consensus, *then* you start needing some set of rules - such as
RRO - to provide a framework that allows decisions to be made in an orderly
way. Informal rules start being insufficient, since things get divided into
winners & losers & the winners need some way of convincing everyone that at
least the process was fair.
|
janc
|
|
response 82 of 97:
|
Nov 14 23:19 UTC 1996 |
Grex's unwritten rules of order say that if you are having difficulty reaching
consensus, step back and ask (1) do we need to decide on this *now*? Can we
postpone the issue for more public discussion? (2) If it is urgent, then can
we decide on something that will "solve" the problem short term and reduce
the urgency of finding a final solution, so we can fall back on (1). (3) If
all else fails, vote and go with the majority.
|
scott
|
|
response 83 of 97:
|
Nov 15 01:15 UTC 1996 |
Grex's talking stick is the Coop conference. Nice, serialized blurbs from
each person in turn.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 84 of 97:
|
Nov 15 05:12 UTC 1996 |
If we ever decide that Grex needs something in writing, I think we should ask
Jan to write up the way Grex actually works. He regularly comes up with
insightful descriptions of The Way Things Actually Work, such as #82.
*I* couldn't have told you how Grex does these things, until I read that.
But as it turns out, what Jan wrote is exactly accurate.
|
tsty
|
|
response 85 of 97:
|
Nov 15 07:04 UTC 1996 |
janc's final sentence sumerizes any civilized organization, regardless
of what was involved reaching that finality. "... vote and go with
the majority."
|
chelsea
|
|
response 86 of 97:
|
Nov 15 09:41 UTC 1996 |
Well, what Jan wrote might not be "exactly accurate" for everyone.
I would disagree and not be inclined to follow Jan's unwritten rule #3.
|
janc
|
|
response 87 of 97:
|
Nov 15 14:38 UTC 1996 |
I'm not entirely sure I've ever seen rule three activated. The nearest I can
remember is that the board voted to move to the Plymouth Rd site over STeve's
objections. STeve isn't a board member, and we didn't end up going to
Plymouth Road, but it was a situation where a decision *had* to be made and
there simply wasn't more time for talk. And the board does vote on things
and votes do get counted, so things are organized so that rule three could
easily be activated. Plus with a change in the composition of the board, I
can see it possibly becoming necessary. Anyway, I personally find it
fascinating. I've never seen an organization that works this way before.
|
robh
|
|
response 88 of 97:
|
Nov 15 18:31 UTC 1996 |
And the funniest thing there is, we ended up moving to the place
that STeve had been recommending all along. >8)
|
remmers
|
|
response 89 of 97:
|
Nov 15 21:46 UTC 1996 |
So much for the voting concept. :)
|
krj
|
|
response 90 of 97:
|
Nov 16 03:58 UTC 1996 |
New Grex procedure for resolving serious conflict: STeve wins.
:)
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 91 of 97:
|
Nov 16 18:25 UTC 1996 |
Any "steve" or just STeve?
|
mta
|
|
response 92 of 97:
|
Nov 16 18:46 UTC 1996 |
Hey, why not any Steve ... that keeps the excitement factor open as the Steves
duke it out. ;)
|
scg
|
|
response 93 of 97:
|
Nov 16 19:40 UTC 1996 |
(Just to claifify, teh board voted to go the place that STeve didn't want,
with the place that STeve wanted as the backup if we couldn't work something
out with the landlords. When we found out that the landlords at the place
the board voted on weren't interested in anymore. The place STeve wanted us
to go to became the available location.
As an aside, I'm kind of glad it turned out that way. The Pumpkin is turning
out to be a really nice place to have Grex)
|
srw
|
|
response 94 of 97:
|
Nov 17 06:06 UTC 1996 |
This steve agrees with that Steve, and wants to thank the other STeve for
finding the pumpkin.
|
dang
|
|
response 95 of 97:
|
Nov 17 23:16 UTC 1996 |
Hey! No fun if all the Steves agree!
|
tsty
|
|
response 96 of 97:
|
Nov 19 08:02 UTC 1996 |
<<is this the revolving STeve-a-door?>>
|
tsty
|
|
response 97 of 97:
|
Mar 1 21:00 UTC 1997 |
much more like "STeve-adore."
|