7 ms·

To offer some dissent: I've seen tiny organizations (like 5 people) try to implement this in their meetings, and it's infuriating. If you have some giant organ

To offer some dissent: I've seen tiny organizations (like 5 people) try to implement this in their meetings, and it's infuriating. If you have some giant organization where you must implement stuff like this, then fine. If you have a small organization where you don't have to, then meetings should have a facilitator leading the meeting, and then should flow essentially like a conversation.

Wistar 4y ago
Hear, hear.
smoyer 4y ago
I was president of the board for a small non-profit organization and somewhat disagree - you probably don't need to enforce all the formality but it's still a good way to make sure things are done in an orderly fashion. Having motions, second and votes is also useful to the board secretary as it's easy to get the important parts in the minutes. I didn't generally hand off the "floor" and I instead let the conversation flow. As a non-profit, some things do require formal votes and tallies.
- ghaff 4y ago
  I'm on the board of a small non-profit and was the chair for a long time. Normally we let discussion flow and there's often consensus at the end or a couple people might mildly disagree about something. However, we have had situations over the years where it really mattered whether there was quorum, how an emergency meeting could be called, the scope of authority of the executive board, whether phone/write-in/proxy votes counted, etc. Formal procedures often don't matter--but sometimes they do.
cratermoon 4y ago
Resolved, That the thanks of this convention be tendered to the gentlehacker for their wisdom and insight.
- jgbmlg 4y ago
  I rise to a point of order! The motion was not seconded!
mannykannot 4y ago
IIRC Steven Levy, in his now-dated book 'Hackers', begins with the MIT Tech Model Railroad Club, whose members, he wrote, tended to gravitate to one of two groups: those interested in modeling the trains, structures and environment, and those drawn to the track, its signals and controls. One characteristic of the latter group, he says, was taking delight in bringing chaos to meetings through creative use of Robert's Rules.
- musingsole 4y ago
  Formal rules provide plausible deniability for bad faith communications. In the presence of good faith, formal rules aren't needed. Much like methane and "thou which smelt it", I get very cynical whenever anyone calls for formalization.
  - lupire 4y ago
    Bad faith communications are usually better than bad faith utter chaos.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Formal rules are also needed if there is even good faith strong disagreement on an issue, especially if it's a fairly even split. Absent written procedures associated with how decisions are made, people can legitimately disagree on things like voting procedures.
    - pmyteh 4y ago
      Yes - and voting procedures are a great example. You do not want to be arguing about who is entitled to vote, or the process to be followed, when a highly controversial question is before the group. That guarantees a meta-fight about the rules, because the precise choice of counting rule etc. will benefit one 'side' of the issue. And that leads to (extra) bitterness. Choose a reasonable voting process in advance, then use that. There's no such thing as a perfect process anyway.
      - 4y ago
GavinMcG 4y ago
Even small organizations can benefit from a manageable set of tools. It's just that Robert's is not manageable. One alternative I've really liked is Cannon's [0]. It's got all the essential elements and clearly explains how to escape the rules and run meetings largely as conversations. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Cannons-Concise-Guide-Rules-Order/dp/0595210694 https://www.amazon.com/Cannons-Concise-Guide-Rules-Order/dp/...
patmorgan23 4y ago
Depends on the org but the principals behind the rules are good pretty much everywhere. One speaker at time/don't interrupt people. Decisions are made only after everyone's had the opportunity to discuss/speak Proposals need to be specific/defined Majority rule but minority rights.
NIL8 4y ago
This reminds me of Flight of the Conchords where the manager, Murray, holds meetings in his office with the two band members. He even keeps the minutes himself. Hilarious!
- acheron 4y ago
  Prisint.

Wistar 4y ago

Hear, hear.

smoyer 4y ago

I was president of the board for a small non-profit organization and somewhat disagree - you probably don't need to enforce all the formality but it's still a good way to make sure things are done in an orderly fashion. Having motions, second and votes is also useful to the board secretary as it's easy to get the important parts in the minutes. I didn't generally hand off the "floor" and I instead let the conversation flow. As a non-profit, some things do require formal votes and tallies.

ghaff 4y ago
I'm on the board of a small non-profit and was the chair for a long time. Normally we let discussion flow and there's often consensus at the end or a couple people might mildly disagree about something. However, we have had situations over the years where it really mattered whether there was quorum, how an emergency meeting could be called, the scope of authority of the executive board, whether phone/write-in/proxy votes counted, etc. Formal procedures often don't matter--but sometimes they do.

cratermoon 4y ago

Resolved, That the thanks of this convention be tendered to the gentlehacker for their wisdom and insight.

jgbmlg 4y ago
I rise to a point of order! The motion was not seconded!

mannykannot 4y ago

IIRC Steven Levy, in his now-dated book 'Hackers', begins with the MIT Tech Model Railroad Club, whose members, he wrote, tended to gravitate to one of two groups: those interested in modeling the trains, structures and environment, and those drawn to the track, its signals and controls. One characteristic of the latter group, he says, was taking delight in bringing chaos to meetings through creative use of Robert's Rules.

musingsole 4y ago
Formal rules provide plausible deniability for bad faith communications. In the presence of good faith, formal rules aren't needed. Much like methane and "thou which smelt it", I get very cynical whenever anyone calls for formalization.
- lupire 4y ago
  Bad faith communications are usually better than bad faith utter chaos.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Formal rules are also needed if there is even good faith strong disagreement on an issue, especially if it's a fairly even split. Absent written procedures associated with how decisions are made, people can legitimately disagree on things like voting procedures.
  - pmyteh 4y ago
    Yes - and voting procedures are a great example. You do not want to be arguing about who is entitled to vote, or the process to be followed, when a highly controversial question is before the group. That guarantees a meta-fight about the rules, because the precise choice of counting rule etc. will benefit one 'side' of the issue. And that leads to (extra) bitterness. Choose a reasonable voting process in advance, then use that. There's no such thing as a perfect process anyway.
    - 4y ago

GavinMcG 4y ago

Even small organizations can benefit from a manageable set of tools. It's just that Robert's is not manageable. One alternative I've really liked is Cannon's [0]. It's got all the essential elements and clearly explains how to escape the rules and run meetings largely as conversations. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Cannons-Concise-Guide-Rules-Order/dp/0595210694 https://www.amazon.com/Cannons-Concise-Guide-Rules-Order/dp/...

patmorgan23 4y ago

Depends on the org but the principals behind the rules are good pretty much everywhere. One speaker at time/don't interrupt people. Decisions are made only after everyone's had the opportunity to discuss/speak Proposals need to be specific/defined Majority rule but minority rights.

NIL8 4y ago

This reminds me of Flight of the Conchords where the manager, Murray, holds meetings in his office with the two band members. He even keeps the minutes himself. Hilarious!

acheron 4y ago
Prisint.