[EM] Comments re Robert's Rules of Order

[Dave Ketchum]

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 RLSuter at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 8/5/05 11:31 AM EDT, Abd ul-Rahman
> Lomax writes:
> 
> 
>>At 06:55 PM 8/4/2005, RLSuter at aol.com 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.

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    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.