by larve on 8/25/23, 4:03 PM with 32 comments
by NortySpock on 8/25/23, 5:06 PM
The rules (both Rusty's and Robert's) are basically a state machine that helps people to run the kind of meetings that create top-down rules and directives for an organization with common ownership (so, a fraternity, sorority, union group, city council, or Parliament)
(Google brings up several PDFs if you search for Rusty's Rules of Order)
by mmastrac on 8/25/23, 5:13 PM
by Digory on 8/25/23, 6:03 PM
The largest parliamentary meeting in a given year is usually the Southern Baptist Convention, where up to 40,000 people use Roberts at a town hall meeting.
They’re a little heavy for a normal corporate team meeting, but those meetings usually can’t survive conflict.
by kragen on 8/25/23, 7:15 PM
basically robert's rules of order exists to prevent different factions from leaving a meeting with conflicting interpretations of what was decided, or from preventing anything from being decided
by lcall on 8/26/23, 10:52 PM
ps: In reading some of the above I learned that there are informal ways to manage a meeting, so it doesn't have to be stiff and formal all the time. But the formality can be used as soon as it is needed. (Haven't yet had practice with it though, unlike some other commenters here.)
by dragontamer on 8/25/23, 5:18 PM
A lot of people in practice do not talk out decisions anymore. They instead go to the internet, look up other people's arguments, and use that as the basis of their decision-making. In effect, the internet has replaced Robert's Rules of Order as a form of cultural organization.
----------
* Instead of "Everyone has 2 turns to talk per meeting", we have upvotes, like and subscribe for more visibility.
* Instead of deciding upon whether an issue is dead and moving on (60%+ vote to kill debate), we have trolls to shout down an argument and get people to leave.
* Instead of a chairman trying to balance everyone's need for discussion, we have algorithms and influencers fighting to the top of attention hierarchies.
-----------
We don't need Robert's Rules because we can organize a perpetual online discussion on any subject we want. Alas, we've lost something... Parliamentary Theory taught that minorities deserve a discussion (even if they inevitably lose the vote). Forcing everyone to hear the minority's discussion points before voting is fundamental to Robert's Rules.
Now Roberts Rules are unwieldy, they're slow. Forcing everyone to sit around and listen to everyone else talk one-at-a-time just doesn't scale to Internet-sizes. But we also can't leave our debates and discussions to online technologies.
Yes, "some meetings should be emails". But meetings and conferences (as per Roberts Rules) existed for over a hundred years for a reason. Minority voices matter. The modern internet (Reddit, Youtube, TikTok, etc. etc.) doesn't give a voice to the minority, so everyone constantly is feeling silenced.
--------------
Social Networks _have_ made things more convenient. And I think Hacker News proves the importance of moderators to lead discussion (Hacker News is very barebones in terms of social networking features, and instead relies upon the heroic efforts of moderators to keep us on subject).
Good discussions need leaders. Roberts Rules were mostly a set of rules for how leaders should lead discussions. A modern version of Roberts Rules would likely be more about how to be a moderator and how to ensure everyone gets a fair shot at the online discussion.
But I'm also not convinced that any social network has truly figured out the proper political theories with regards to how discussions to evolve in the online space. Roberts Rules had centuries of inspiration and political theory study, we've only had social media for a few short decades at best.
by westurner on 8/26/23, 10:52 PM
> An indexed collection of governance documents from Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects.
> FOSS Governance Zotero Collection: https://www.zotero.org/groups/2310183/foss_governance/item-l...
Open-source governance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_governance
Communication in distributed software development > Forms of communication > Synchronous, Asynchronous, Hybrid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_in_distributed_s...
by UtopiaPunk on 8/26/23, 1:39 AM
I've used these methods in non-profits, political party meetings, churches, and political activitist groups. However, I've never actually used these in the workplace! The key difference, I imagine, is in in my workplaces, there has always been a single individual or a couple individuals who clearly have the decision-making authority. They make ask for input from a wider group of people, but at the end of the day, they don't care if everyone's voice is heard, they just to make some kind of choice. Outside of the work I do for money, the other projects I'm drawn to are democratic.
by TradingPlaces on 8/25/23, 5:06 PM
by ZYXER on 8/25/23, 10:42 PM
by esafak on 8/25/23, 4:44 PM
by martinky24 on 8/25/23, 5:03 PM