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