discuss: Should LDP apply for non-profit status (was Re: VolunteerMatch ...)
Subject:
Re: [discuss] Should LDP apply for non-profit status (was Re: VolunteerMatch ...)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
20 Apr 2007 20:26:20 -0000
Message-Id: <20070420202629.GB5236@davespc>
> Quoting Bradley Hook ####@####.####
>
> > Deliberative assemblies have very little to do with the daily operations
> > of an organization, but they have everything to do with governance. I
> > like how "governance" is defined in Wikipedia:
>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 02:57:12PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Pretty damned grandiose for computerist organisations, which for good
> and compelling reasons tend to be run as lean do-ocracies[1] staffed by
> small groups of active participants.
>
> In that realm, it's my experience that gratuitous bureaucracy (e.g., the
> SFpcUG Steering Committee) can be the last straw. You presumably have
> different views. Good luck with that.
At a meeting of a mismanaged church conducted per Robert's Rules of
Order I was stonily opposed to the motion but it passed almost
unanimously without me being able to say a word opposing it. The
motion was proposed and spoken of favorably. Then it was said "let's
vote to vote on it". They did so and since over 2/3 voted to vote on
it, debate was cut off and only the pro side of the case was heard.
I tried to interrupt but no debate is allowed per Roberts Rules on a
motion to call the question (a vote to vote on it).
In like manner, tabling is used under Robert's rules to kill motions
without debate. The rule about not interrupting a speaker allows talk
to continue for a long time based on false assumptions. One of the
worst problems in formal organizations is that people vote without
understanding the implications of what they are voting on.
David Lawyer
