-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 08 November 2004 06:20 pm, wayne wrote:
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.
You misunderstand Robert's Rules. Sure, it scales for thousands of people,
or for conventions representing hundreds of thousands of millions of
people. But it is just as effective in dealing with groups of 10 or so. Do
you follow all the rules to the letter? Of course, and there are rules on
how to proceed if there is no disagreement. "Without objection, the motion
carries."
And if the group is amicable, and in general agreement, setting aside the
rules is appropriate according to Robert's Rules. It's important to know
you have them just in case you need them, however. It's important to
remember them so you don't trample on the rights of others to express
themselves and make their opinion known and recognized.
Of course, a benevolent dictatorship is much simpler. Whatever the dictator
says is law. But too often people's rights get trampled in that scenario,
and there is no recourse. There is recourse in RR if the officers neglect
or abuse their charge; if a member violates the rules; if things go
horribly and terribly wrong and everyone wants to harm each other.
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
I would recommend looking at the latest version. Visit your local library
and get a copy for free. There has been a lot of simplification since the
1915 version.
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.
Is RR a panacea? No. Just like Extreme Programming or any set of ideas and
rules are not a panacea, neither is RR. It takes people who understand the
concepts and can apply them fairly and properly to make it work.
You are right about RR. It is the fallback net when things start going
wrong, which they will. They are going wrong right now! Let me ask you,
which standard do we support? Classic SPF (whose version?), Unified SPF,
Sender ID? Do we support Meng or Wayne or Koen or who as our leader? Who is
allowed to represent us to the media? Who is in charge of our website?
These are all questions we are disagreeing on!
I think we should keep things *much* simpler. Work by consensus, use
votes when consensus isn't clear and try to get along.
Is it simpler to make up the rules as we go and just try and get along, or
to spell out the rules and agree to a standard? What happens when someone
from Taiwan tries to join in the debate but they don't know what standard
we are using for debate? We need a document to point them to. That document
is RR.
Let's minimize confusion and agree to a standard: RR.
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.
Good question. How can we come to an agreement on this? For that matter,
what is the purpose of our group? We don't even agree on that fundamental
concept. Article II of the bylaws would specify that in black and white.
When would the group be disbanded? That would be in the bylaws as well.
Microsoft is a group just like our group would be. Sure, they have filed
papers with the state telling them that they are a corporation intent on
making money for their members (shareholders). But they have a set of
bylaws with a purpose (that changes from time to time). New members are
added by buying stock in that group. You get as many votes as you own
shares of stock.
At shareholder meetings, and meetings of the board of directors, they follow
Robert's Rules or something very similar to it. They are able to take a
dissimilar group of people who ahve the same purpose and generate a
consensus. We know how effective they are.
We need that for our organization.
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.
Yes, let's keep it simple. Let's use the set of rules that are the simplest
set that anyone has come up with that work - RR.
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBkRqbBFeYcclU5Q0RAvo3AKCrX4eUIA1i0WPfCt7xD9bFWe2PUwCfbkuN
y+yQe7Bfh+v/C2CX5Ys/sgQ=
=uyOL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----