Next step -- Deciding on output

Taral taral at
Wed Feb 5 23:11:41 UTC 2003

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 05:30:36PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> We also have never adopted Robert's Rules of Order (I assume RRONR is
> some version/edition of that) or any other formal parliamentary rule
> scheme. Therefore we are not bound by them. In fact, I'd imagine the
> rules that John put forth in the self-organization document are rather
> different from RRONR. If you think we should adopt RRONR, I'm open to
> hearing your reasons. I don't see any such reasons, but I'm not going to
> claim it's a bad idea without knowing more.

I wasn't advocating the adoption of Robert's Rules, in fact I recommend
against it. However certain things that it does are useful, and the
rationale it gives for those things is also useful.

> I think, then, that we should provide both an report with the outline
> that I gave in my last mail (I'll dig up the URL if you ask), and a
> resolution in the form that you suggest. These two documents will be
> largely redundant, except that the report will explain and elaborate
> upon the resolution, which should be clear and legally precise.

I'm content with this. If it turns out that the report bears no
additional information, then we can always decide not to present it.

Taral <taral at>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the Spi-bylaws mailing list