----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Gardner" <jonagard(_at_)amazon(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Action based on SPF Organization Poll
-----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.
Good grief - we are talking about a small organisation being set up to do a
job for maybe a year at most. We don't need a whole rule book for that. If
we can't agree to simple things like making sure everyone getting a say, I
would suggest we're doomed from the beginning - rules or no rules.
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!
Not really Jonathan - they are questions - that much may be true, but the
disagreement will end as soon as the council is elected and makes a
decision. That's what we're electing them to do.
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.
Hypothetically - yes, but in reality, no. we're dealing amongst ourselves
here, and we all have a pretty good idea of who's what and who thinks what,
so to introduce a "wildcard" is correct, but inappropriate.
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.
We are all well aware of what we are doing and how long we have to do it.
The SPF Council will not be there for long and if it needs to continue, it
can decide on whether a set of rules is appropriate.
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.
Well - maybe wwe have a culture gap between us, but my idea of simple does
not involve such meetings. The chances are that the council will never
actually meet.
75 chapters in 13 sections is *not* simple. It will only serve those people
who are prepared to spend the time reading them through and reaching a level
of understanding that will outweigh their potential opponents. I have
better things to do with my own life, and experience has shown that a much
simpler approach makes for a clear and efficient organisation.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492