Unanimous Consent

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

A few quick words on these subjects.  I know I went over these on a 
meeting once a while back, but it was some time ago and we have new 
members who may not be familiar with it.

With full formality, approving a motion according to the full form of 
parliamentary procedure would follow a script something like this:

1) A member seeks recognition from the Chair
2) The Chair recognizes the member, giving them permission to speak
3) The member makes a motion:  I move that ODF be renamed "Open Duck 
Formula"
4) Another member seconds the motion
5) The Chair gives the question over to debate, e.g, The motion has been 
made and seconded that ODF be renamed "Open Duck Formula"
6) Members then individually seek recognition from the Chair to speak on 
the motion
7) Members may make subsidiary motions, such as motions to amend the main 
motion.  This introduces a bit of internal looping/recursion back to step 
3.
8) A member makes a motion to end debate, "I move the previous question".
9) The Chair calls for a vote on a motion to end debate, which then must 
pass by 2/3 majority
10) The Chair announces the results of the vote to end debate
12) The Chair then calls for a vote on the main motion
12) The Chair announces the results of the vote, "The vote was 13-3, the 
motion passes and ODF is renamed 'Open Duck Formula'"

As you can see, we wouldn't get much done if we used the full form of 
Robert's Rules for all TC business. 

Some items, like approving the agenda, approving minutes, or approving 
other business, at the discretion of the Chair, may be adopted by 
unanimous consent.  Unanimous consent, sometimes called "general consent" 
is a labor saving device. This means that instead of going through the 12 
steps outlined above, the Chair simple says:

"If there is no objection, ODF is renamed to 'Open Duck Formula'"

or

"Without objection, ODF is renamed to Open Duck Formula'"

or

"Is there any objection to renaming ODF to Open Duck Formula"?  <pause> 
"Hearing no objection, ODF is renamed to Open Duck Formula"

Any member may object to the application of the unanimous consent 
procedure.  This doesn't necessarily mean that you disagree with the 
underling question.  It just means that you object to the of the short 
form for approving the motion.  And not objecting to the unanimous consent 
procedure doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with the underlying 
question either.  It just means that you realize that it would be 
pointless or ineffectual to oppose the underlying question.

If you say, "I object", then the Chair aborts the unanimous consent, and 
we go back to a longer form of the procedure.  We'll rarely, if ever, do 
it in the full form, but we certainly would at that point allow members to 
discuss the underlying question and have a vote. 

That's it in a nutshell.  Just remember, unanimous consent doesn't mean 
something was unanimous.  It doesn't even mean that there was a consensus. 
 It just means that if that the question was decided without debate, and 
that no one objected to that mode of deciding the question, regardless of 
their feelings on the underlying question.  It is purely optional, and can 
be halted by even a single member saying "I object".

-Rob