Talk:Proposed Rules of Order UXC Meetings

We discussed this during the 10/14/14 UXC meeting for about 20 minutes.

The Document had just gone out to UXC members, and we agreed that we would discuss here, in email and think about these formalizations of how we run meetings going forward. We will discuss this verbally again next week.

Here are the main points that came up in the meeting. Please add more or flesh these out more, on this page:

• The main reason we discussed having these rules was to balance the need to hear all sides with the need to produce work in a timely way. We want everyone to be heard, but also to be able to agree and move forward. -Mary
• The Doc was qualified to add to the bullet point on talking 2 times: "unless a person is the presenter of a section or doc" - AnnRR
• Suggestion: we use the Discussion pages of the wiki and our email list to lay out arguments or ideas, as we lead up to meetings, and then at the meeting, consolidate those views so that we can keep to time discussions on issues. - Mary
• Voting vs. Consensus was raised. How do we managed a sustained objection? How do we maintain a comfortable approach? If the goal is to "find consensus" in IDESG.. what does that mean? Is it "fair notice" as in maybe an item is discussed at a couple of meetings, and has some email and wiki discussion? What is the process for minority opinion? - AnnRR
• Would consensus look like notice on agendas of upcoming votes, email and wiki discussions, and discussions in meetings? If 8 of 10 people attending during those meetings and online agree, is that enough? What do we need to feel that we've balanced the hearing of multiple views, with proceeding with our work? - Mary
• Request to having a note at front of doc that rules will be invoked at Chair's discretion and we'll strive for a lighter touch generally, etc. -- Group discussion

Please add more: