Re: [wsbpel] Guidelines [Was RE: [wsbpel] This telcon process doesn't work!]

[Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>]

At 11:23 AM 5/16/2003, Donald Steiner wrote:
>I quite support Rand's observations. Just one follow-on guideline, taking 
>up on Fred's remarks: In general, if an issue that can't immediately be 
>resolved comes up in a formal meeting like this, a motion should be made 
>to deal with it offline and return to it at the next meeting.

The problem here is twofold:
   a. a motion to table is non-debatable - something that wasn't observed 
during the call - and because of the speaker management no one who knew 
that was able to state that - but it still requires a 2nd and a vote. (Also 
note a motion to table doesn't delay anything to the next meeting. It 
simply "parks" the motion temporarily. The next person to be recognized can 
move to bring it back from the table. (That's really why it's 
non-debatable.) Often people use it as a way to "kill" a motion because it 
dies after the meeting. (I won't get into "sessions".:-)
   b. If the intent is to not talk about the topic immediately but to 
create a taskforce/subcommittee/etc. which will eventually report back to 
the larger group, then that motion is itself debatable. I believe that was 
in fact the intent on the call. But that merely changes the challenge from 
managing the debate about the issue, to managing a debate about whether to 
create a subgroup.

  Robert's Rules was specifically developed to allow large groups to 
discuss and make decisions efficiently, while at the same time safeguarding 
the rights of the minority to be heard. However, there's a catch. The 
people running the meeting AND the members have to understand the rules and 
know how to make them work.
  A well run large meeting HAS to have a speaker queue. The question is 
more of a mechanical one of how to manage the queue.

jeff

>
>  - Donald
>
>--------------
>Donald Steiner
>Chief Scientist
>WebV2, Inc.             Phone&Fax: +1(650)940-1382
>169 University Ave         E-mail: Donald.Steiner@webv2.com
>Palo Alto, CA  94301          WWW: www.webv2.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.com]
>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:59 AM
>To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: 'Ben Bloch'; Burdett, David; 'Darran Rolls'; Diane Jordan
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel] This telcon process doesn't work!
>
>Folks,
>My initial reaction to today's kickoff:
>
>
>We ran into some issues (some business but mostly protocol, I think), but 
>to me, these seem like mostly normal issues for the birth-pains of a new 
>group with this kind of mission and industry interest. The benefit to 
>running into these kinds of issues in our kickoff meeting is that we can 
>solidify some ground rules and practices early in our life that will help 
>things go more smoothly the rest of the way, before we get to the really 
>gnarly issues. BTW, thanks to all who spearheaded, attended, and supported 
>this, but especially to Diane and John for their patient leadership.
>
>
>Some points of order that I might offer:
>
>
>A few folks complained about having a conference call meeting conducted 
>mostly in "listen-only" mode and needing to resort to speaker queues. I 
>presume they felt that this somehow would constrain or limit (negatively) 
>the opportunities for contribution and/or interaction.
>
>
>In fact, if we were to strictly follow Robert's Rules of Order, these 
>constraints would be barely noticed by anyone participating (with maybe a 
>minor exception, see my suggested revisions below). [In fact, following 
>Robert's Rules on a conf call with speaker-queuing is better than 
>following Robert's Rules in person in at least one way: the fairness of 
>the queuing is managed for us by the call system; when in person, the 
>sequence of hand-raising is somewhat subject to the memory of the chair.]
>
>
>John, I think you mentioned getting a FAQ for Robert's Rules posted to the 
>BPEL site - this is crucial, and everyone needs to get some basic 
>familiarity with operating in a group bound by Robert's Rules. They are 
>intended (and crafted over many years) to help ensure fair and orderly 
>conduct of decision making by groups.
>
>
>To be clear, for BPEL conf call TC meetings, I am strongly in favor of 
>conducting them roughly as was proposed for today's call, with listen-mode 
>most of the time (to minimize line noise), plus the following guidelines:
>-          allow folks to get in the speaker queue at any time (this is 
>simply analogous to raising your hand to be heard at an in-person meeting)
>-          ask that the meeting chair simply call on those in the queue in 
>a FIFO manner, as appropriate to the point at hand
>-          note that getting into the queue doesn't mean you can speak at 
>will; you will get your turn as called upon by the chair
>-          again, participants should think of getting in the speaker 
>queue simply as equivalent to raising your hand. If you 'drop your hand' 
>then re-raise it, you first fall out of the queue and then get back on at 
>the end of the queue. This is fair.
>-          until we get the hang of it, we maybe need to be a bit more 
>heavy-handed on enforcing some of the rules of order, e.g., when the item 
>on the floor is whether or not you object to the current motion, do not 
>use your moment on the floor to suggest another amendment - that only 
>creates confusion. There are certain times open for amendments, etc. Read 
>Robert's Rules to get some understanding of how this works.
>
>
>  [...]