One quote below, supposedly of my words, caused me to look up what I
actually said:
ANY set of bylaws based on RONR can include changes and additions,
such as supporting approval voting. Those doing such amending need to
understand RONR well enough to avoid accidental destruction.
So, his quote was true, but easy to misunderstand when detached from its
original paragraph. CERTAINLY bylaws writers can do such, but need
caution. For example, RONR specifies majority for some votes, and super
majority for others. It is easy to change this balance in a set of bylaws
without bothering to understand that the balance was designed to
selectively make some actions more difficult to approve than others.
Certainly amending RONR, itself, is doable, and has been happening every
few years, but this is a bigger deal than amending a few sets of bylaws.
Certainly proposing changes in the meeting rules defined by RONR and
bylaws is doable, and does not require perfect understanding - look at
what we tolerate on other topics on EM. Helps if writers distinguish
between bare ideas and ideas that have been demonstrated by successful use.
DWK
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:56:01 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/5/05 11:31 AM EDT, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax writes:
At 06:55 PM 8/4/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some questions you need to answer. (1) assuming that Lomax is
more familiar with RONR than Suter, does that disqualify Suter
from commenting on RONR? That's what you seem to imply.
I didn't see any such implication. >>
The implication you fail to see is abundantly clear if you read
Dave Ketchum's post from the beginning. He started by saying:
Lomax demonstrates familiarity with Robert's Rules (RONR).
Suter writes a LOTTA words, >>
He later added:
Those doing such amending need to
understand RONR well enough to avoid
accidental destruction.
In short, while Lomax "demonstrates familiarity," Suter merely
"writes a LOTTA words," and since amending RONR requires
not only familiarity with it but understanding it "well enough,"
Suter doesn't have the qualifications needed to propose
revisions and be taken seriously. He should shut up until
he has acquired an adequate understanding.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
