Re: Issues with DASC/WG P&P for DASC-SC to resolve

From: Jim Lewis <Jim@SynthWorks.com>
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 09:25:38 PDT

Peter and all,
> Robert's Rules specify procedures for conduct of meetings, including
> procedures for making, debating and voting on motions. The rules for formal
> meetings may be somewhat ponderous, so there are "shortcuts" for conduct of
> informal meetings to expedite proceedings. These shortcuts, however, do not
> impede a member's right to participate and be heard.
I have done a web search on Robert's rules, revised.
There seem to be numerous copies posted. Are they all
the same? It would greatly simplify and clairify which
one we are using if we had a pdf copy posted on the DASC
website. Anyone have a pdf copy?

Beyond this, I only have a finite amount of time
to contribute to standards. I would like to spend
that time working on technical contributions.
Reading and learning the full version of Robert's
rules seems to be overwhelming. I will read it if
this is what it takes.

> Perhaps one approach to addressing the issue you raise would be to formalize
> this understanding. In that case, parliamentary wording, such as "I move
> that ...," "I second the motion" or "I move the Previous Question," would
> have the weight you seek. It would also clarify the role of the Chair in
> email dialogs, namely, to moderate the discussion and to follow
> parliamentary procedure for informal meetings. Such an approach would be in
> keeping with our Quality Metrics (see www.dasc.org).

Anything agreed upon text that formally identifies an
item as to what it is would be helpful. Also a
simplified flow for proposing and getting technical
and admistrative action heard and voted upon would be
helpful.

> If this approach is seen as desirable, we might formalize it in the
> procedures documents, as you suggest, or simply by a resolution of the
> committee. In the latter case, it would become one of our Standing Rules
> (that is, the collection of resolutions deciding upon ongoing action).
> Would a motion to that effect conform with your intention?

My preference is that it goes in the P&P document.
I can't find any other document on the webpage that
contains rules. If I can't find them, I can't
follow them. What are the Standing Rules and where
are they documented?

Best Regards,
Jim

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Lewis
Director of Training             mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
SynthWorks Design Inc.           http://www.SynthWorks.com
1-503-590-4787
Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim,
> 
> Thank you for raising this procedural issue.  Please allow me to clarify
> some aspects of procedure and suggest some alternatives so that you can
> formalize your motion.
> 
> The DASC and its subgroups operate under parliamentary procedure based on
> Robert's Rules of Order.  They are also bound by the various operating
> procedures documents that apply and that are listed in our procedures
> documents.
> 
> Robert's Rules specify procedures for conduct of meetings, including
> procedures for making, debating and voting on motions.  The rules for formal
> meetings may be somewhat ponderous, so there are "shortcuts" for conduct of
> informal meetings to expedite proceedings.  These shortcuts, however, do not
> impede a member's right to participate and be heard.
> 
> It has been the practice of DASC and its subgroups to conduct much of their
> business my email using email distribution lists.  The (perhaps tacit)
> understanding is that such email dialogs constitute a form of ongoing and
> distributed meeting, and that the rules of informal meetings should apply.
> 
> Perhaps one approach to addressing the issue you raise would be to formalize
> this understanding.  In that case, parliamentary wording, such as "I move
> that ...," "I second the motion" or "I move the Previous Question," would
> have the weight you seek.  It would also clarify the role of the Chair in
> email dialogs, namely, to moderate the discussion and to follow
> parliamentary procedure for informal meetings.  Such an approach would be in
> keeping with our Quality Metrics (see www.dasc.org).
> 
> If this approach is seen as desirable, we might formalize it in the
> procedures documents, as you suggest, or simply by a resolution of the
> committee.  In the latter case, it would become one of our Standing Rules
> (that is, the collection of resolutions deciding upon ongoing action).
> Would a motion to that effect conform with your intention?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter Ashenden
> DASC Chair
> 
> --
> Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
> Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
> PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
> Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
> Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jim Lewis [mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com] 
>>Sent: Friday, 30 April 2004 00:37
>>To: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org
>>Cc: Peter Ashenden
>>Subject: Issues with DASC/WG P&P for DASC-SC to resolve
>>
>>
>>Peter and Members of DASC-SC,
>>I would like to make a motion to revise DASC/DASC-SC/WG
>>P&P to clearly define what DASC considers to be an
>>acceptable format for the following procedural issues:
>>
>>   1) motion for call for discussion of an issue/proposal
>>   2) motion for call for vote on an issue/proposal
>>
>>I have been working in IEEE/DASC standards groups since 
>>1997/1998.  I have to be honest, procedurally I don't know if 
>>I could distinguish an acceptable format for these from an 
>>unacceptable one.  Each group seems to have its own flavor of 
>>doing things and I am ok with this, however, I also have 
>>Alex's position to deal with:
>>
>>
>>>YOU SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR ANYTHING, AND
>>>PROCEED WITH WHAT I RECOMMENDED.
>>>HIS MOTION (NOT YET WELL FROMALIZED,
>>>DISCUSSED, OR AMMENDED) PROPOSES ...
>>
>>excerpted from email that was cross-posted to stds-dasc-sc:
>>    >>From: Alex Zamfirescu [mailto:hxml@pacbell.net]
>>    >>Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 21:15
>>    >>Subject: Re: [vhdlsynth] Status of P1076.3 + call for
>>    >>discussion of WG options
>>
>>Since it is not correctly formalized for Alex's working
>>group, Alex chooses to ignore it.  This has happened in
>>the 1076.3 for my motion for a call for vote, it has also 
>>happened for proposals for standards revisions.
>>
>>My point is not whether Alex has a correct position or not.
>>My point is that all working groups have their own
>>format and it takes some effort on the part of the working 
>>group participant to get an item in the correct procedural format.
>>
>>I don't have issue that a working group establishes their
>>own format for these things, however, I would like there
>>also to be a "DASC" approved format for these items that
>>the working group must also accept as a procedurally
>>correct format.
>>
>>Frankly, I am tired of being belittled for not following
>>a procedural format for which I cannot find any
>>documentation.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Jim Lewis
>>-- 
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>Jim Lewis
>>Director of Training             mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
>>SynthWorks Design Inc.           http://www.SynthWorks.com
>>1-503-590-4787
>>
>>Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification 
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wed May 5 09:25:41 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 05 2004 - 09:25:56 PDT