----- Original Message -----
From: "wayne" <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Action based on SPF Organization Poll
In <200411081335(_dot_)39282(_dot_)jonagard(_at_)amazon(_dot_)com> Jonathan
Gardner
<jonagard(_at_)amazon(_dot_)com> writes:
Again, I have personal experience in these things. I strongly urge you
to
consider following the rules in Robert's Rules.
As Wayne says below - Roberts Rules are only usable when everyone
understands them equally well. They were not designed for disparate groups
like this, and certainly not designed for internet groups who never meet
other than by e-mail.
I'm involved with another organization that uses Robert's Rules, has
bylaws, etc. I'm really not sure that we want to get this formal. We
are not dealing with an organization of one thousand people or
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
For those that don't recognize Robert's Rules of Order (RRO), it is a well
tested and widely used set of rules and procedures for running an
organization. It was first printed back in 1876, and it is on
something like it's 10th revision now. A 1915 copy (now in public
domain) can be found at: http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm
RRO doesn't, however, magically make everything perfect. Someone
skilled in the knowledge of the rules can easily out-maneuver others
and effectively take over the process. RRO can be very cumbersome,
with lots of asking for seconds on votes and tabling motions and such.
RRO can allow an organization to survive when there are hostile
factions that can't get along.
Which, basically, isn't us. There is always some fur flying, but that's
natural and healthy - if somewhat tedious at times. We don't need such a
formal structure - and Willam's vote results have clearly indicated that we
don't want such.
I think we should keep things *much* simpler. Work by consensus, use
votes when consensus isn't clear and try to get along.
I also have considerable experience of running highly vocal groups on
e-mail, and experience has shown that a vote result analysis similar to
William's works well. Interestingly, given that everyone has agreed to work
to a certain set of goals, things rarely go to a vote at all, and consensus
is usually found without too much bickering.
One thing to consider: How long will this SPF group need to last? In
many ways, I think we will have failed if we are still working on it 5
years from now. Sure, many of us may go on to related projects, but
if SPF is still in flux a year from now, we have problems. Even an
SPFv2 or Unified-SPF or whatever shouldn't take more than a year or
two tops.
Well put Wayne. This was my next point too.
In my opinion all work should be done on a time-framed project basis. This
simply means that - for example - Koen agrees to run the support team from
date to date. The start and end are *clearly* defined. If he wishes to
continue beyond that end date and everyone is in agreement, then that's
fine, but the important thing is that we are not *stuck* - either as a group
or individually. A person volunteering must state his end date and so will
not feel obliged to go on for ever, and the group accepting a volunteer
knows that end date they will be able to change the person in that job at a
specific date in the future. Normally, people volunteering would be
restricted to a maximum of one year's commitment.
As Wayne says - if this job with v=spf1 goes on longer than a year we have a
different problem to resolve. And the next version of SPF will be a new
project anyway, so new volunteers will be needed.
So, I say keep it simple. We have gone from no organization, to
considering a more formal organization, but we don't need to be a
501(c)3 with audited financial statements and membership cards.
KISS indeed. I am totally opposed to any "constitution" or "charter" - what
on earth is the point when we have no legal status or powers to enforce it?
A well written set of rules will easily suffice, with the rule not being
more than a requirement for elected members to vote on every issue. The
*one* thing that will kill the whole effort quickly is non-participation. If
a member doesn't vote on two issues in succession, he should be replaced
forthwith. The beaurocrats amonst us will throw their collective hands in
the air in horror at this, but experience has shown that in a short-lived
group like this it is the quickest, most easily understood and most
effective method of working.
William's vote results have given the steering council a series of answers
which form a mandate, and we all are pretty much in agreement on the SPF
goals, so anything more is already too much.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492