William
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William X. Walsh" writes:
> I don't agree that her points are that important, but nonetheless, lets assume
> they are for this purpose.
You are entitled to your opinion. As is anybody else.
> If we are having a meeting to decide if our company should open up
> into the market in Country X, should we permit someone to have the
> floor at such a meeting to only argue that we shouldn't market our
> product at all? The decision to market the product had already been
> made, and nothing at this meeting could change that. This meeting
> is not the place to make that argument, this meeting was for the
> narrowling defined purpose of deciding whether to market the product
> in a particular area.
I am not saying he should have recognized her, that's in his
discretion. But once he does she has the floor for the time limit
agreed upon.
Don't go into content, because this may haunt you when someone shuts
you mike off when you have the floor because they disagree with your
position.
> The meeting had a set of parameters of what the meeting's purpose
> and topic was. Ronda's statements were outside the scope of those
> parameters and purpose, and as such was not germaine to the topic at
> hand. I think they were quite generous in the tolerance they showed
> in letting her present her comments even in the limited fashion they
> did.
If I am not mistaken, the meeting went according to Roberts'
Rules.
She *HAD* the floor.
el
