"Roberts Rules of Order was designed for people who like meetings and can't stand each other. MIBS <http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/MIBS> SRC3 is designed for people who hate meetings, generally get along pretty well, but can sometimes get pretty opinionated and obstinate about thorny issues AND tend to ramble on at length."
This is taken from: http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/MIBS_Simplified_Rules_of_Coordinated_Consensus_through_Chaos I've been involved with groups that use Roberts and groups that use concensus. Roberts sucks in comparison. -Dave Walton On Friday, March 21, 2014, Justin Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking from being on other Boards and public Charity governing bodies.... > > There are rules that exist that permit members to motion to table > discussions or to motion to take a decision to committee. Many government > bodies use these rules to permit everyone has a voice and topics can stay > focused. It sets procedure and sets the rules bodies can work through > issues and how they communicate independent views. Many Larger and smaller > groups have adopted these rules so they can get moving forward with doing > the work they came together to do. > > They are the Roberts Rules of Order. > > All the rules may not work for us and maybe need tweaked but it is worth a > look if you are not familiar with them. > > Here is a link to a quick synoposis: > http://www.ulm.edu/staffsenate/documents/roberts-rules-of-order.pdf > > In addition a president or executive is commonly the one who leads the > meeting and ensures that everyone is given a voice. (This is one of the > reasons it is required by the state to have a president.) A president's job > is not to affect the outcome but to allow others the fair playing field to > speak. When motions are presented and seconded they are the person who > ensures that procedure is followed. They are not a judge or magistrate and > in many groups lacks voting (except in ties) in order to prevent bias. > > An adoption of some of these rules and procedures would help to solve the > issue of: long meetings, hurt feelings, fear of lack of transparency, > public outbursts, and ensure that the group moved forward without being > held up for personal reasons. > > Justin > > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Torrie Fischer > <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Friday, March 21, 2014 03:40:50 a l wrote: > > >* Do we really want to invite the non-interested public to watch us > argue > > > > about internal strife and politics? > > > > I can understand moving internal strife to members@ so we aren't > > bombarding the general community with our ramblings but big issues and > > fundamental disagreements are going to be brought up at meetings which > are > > public. We have people from all walks of life show up out of the blue. > > Since we are a public organization interested in transparency I don't see > > the point of sweeping our strife under the rug. Sure we're going to make > > mistakes(*http://tinyurl.com/8tjspo4 <http://tinyurl.com/8tjspo4>)* but > > why hide them? So long as we learn from them and don't repeat them > there's > > no shame in it. If people are concerned with public appearance and not > > looking like a bunch of fools with a warehouse all they have to do is > > remember that their emails are public and the internet never forgets. > > Right, but I feel that there is a difference between the kind of person who > subscribes to discuss@ and the kind of person who shows up on a Tuesday > because they heard about us and want to see whats up. The former shows some > knowledge of the mechanisms of mailing lists and can understand that > meetings > are dry, boring, and sometimes inflammatory. > > Those who show up on a Tuesday because "Hey, its a meeting, I wonder what > it'll be like" almost always leave halfway through the proposals section > and > end up wandering around the space if we're lucky to have knowledgeable > members > who want to show them around and don't have an interest in the discussion. > > I also have big issues with sweeping our strife under the rug, but I'm not > certain that purposefully cajoling them into watching it is any better. > > Perhaps in this case, more controversial issues can be requested to be > taken > out of the meeting in a separate meeting. > > I've sometimes thought about separating the announcements and community > project/event discussion from the membership, financials, proposals > section of > the Tuesday meeting with moving it to another day, but have been unable to > think of a good approach. > > > > > >* Meetings take way too freakin' long > > > > Meetings only go on forever when there are things that need > > discussing/hashing out. I know everyone would have been happier if the > > meeting on Tuesday hadn't gone on for 3 hours, but nothing would have > > gotten solved. I would guesstimate that the average meeting takes an > hour. > > There are just as many 7 minute meetings as there are 3 hour meetings. > > I'm not entirely against the idea but I don't see it radically changing > > things. Maybe I'm wrong. > > Maybe moving proposal discussion to email will allow people to argue > their > > point better, but if we've got the concerned parties in the same place at > > the same time why force them to take it to their inbox? There was a > > proposal some time ago to require people or their proxy to be present at > > the meeting in order to make decisions on proposals. By moving all > > discussion and blocking ability to the digital world we circumvent this > > requirement. We are a physical space made up of real people. We have to > > interact with each other at some point. > > I think that this workflow addresses this. Formal proposals are still > required > to be on discuss@ for at least a week. > > Example: > > 1. Issue is brought up at a meeting > 2. After 15 minutes of discussion, consensus is not reached, but everyone > agrees to move it to a non-discuss@ list > 3. The interested parties discuss the issue elsewhere > 4. A full proposal is written and submitted to discuss@ on Thursday > 5. The proposal is brought up for discussion at the next meeting > 6. Nobody blocks it, so it is carried over to the next meeting > 7. Nobody has still blocked it, so consensus is reached. > > I do understand your argument that this limits proposal discussion to those > who can e-mail. However, I think that we might be underestimating the > people > involved. I definitely do see three cohorts of members in the last two > years: > > * Those who come to the weekly meeting just to socialize and re > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
