Date: 2015-07-23 06:20 pm (UTC)
Interesting, and thank you. I suspect I could find analogies to the things you list in various groups in American practice. I've had people who want me to make lists of people who want to speak in favor and against a proposal, and call on them in turn. I've resisted this because it doesn't let the debate flow as well as I would like. By the time we get to you, the point to which you want to reply may have already passed by. The California State Association of Parliamentarians required one to submit everything, including procedural motions, in writing. (This is very tempting, given the expected size of our meeting.)

There are equivalent procedural motions to limit debate that you describe. RONR has simply grown fairly complex, having accumulated a lot of stuff over 150 years.

The basic reason Robert wrote the first edition was that he tried to preside over a meeting in San Francisco, and there were so many different "traditional" ways of meeting operation in play (because of the melting-pot nature of SF) that the result was chaos. He wanted order and imposed it by writing rules that drew from the practice of the US House of Representatives, modified for practical use in smaller assemblies. Mind you, it's not impossible that this year's WSFS Business Meeting will have more people in it than the US House of Representatives (435 elected members).
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

May 2025

S M T W T F S
     1 2 3
4 5 6 78 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 2223 24
25 26 27 28293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 29th, 2025 04:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios