[802.3_100GNGOPTX] More Decorum Violations

[Scott Kipp <skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dan,

 

At the last IEEE meeting, I continued to see (and you noted) decorum violations that we hoped we wouldn’t see any more.  I just looked up the definition of Decorum in Debate in Robert’s Rules of Orders and I think it is best summed up by this line: 

It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.

 

I’m seeing some controversial presentation for the next meeting and I think the meeting will be ripe for more of these decorum violations. 

 

Should we actively and immediately object to decorum violations when they happen so that the violations can be stopped?

 

I’m sorry to raise this issue, but this problem has not gone away.

 

Thanks,

Scott

 

PS.  I found this public version of Robert’s Rules of Orders for the groups convenience:

http://robertsrules.org/rror-07.htm#43

 

Here is the most relevant text:

43. Decorum in Debate. In debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities. He cannot reflect upon any act of the assembly, unless he intends to conclude his remarks with a motion to rescind such action, or else while debating such a motion. In referring to another member, he should, as much as possible, avoid using his name, rather referring to him as "the member who spoke last," or in some other way describing him. The officers of the assembly should always be referred to by their official titles. It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.

If at any time the chairman rises to state a point of order, or give information, or otherwise speak, within his privilege, the member speaking must take his seat till the chairman has been heard first. When called to order by the chair the member must sit down until the question of order is decided. If his remarks are decided to be improper, he cannot proceed, if any one objects, without the leave of the assembly expressed by a vote, upon which question no debate is allowed.

Disorderly words should be taken down by the member who objects to them, or by the secretary, and then read to the member. If he denies them, the assembly shall decide by a vote whether they are his words or not. If a member cannot justify the words he used, and will not suitably apologize for using them, it is the duty of the assembly to act in the case. If the disorderly words are of a personal nature, after each party has been heard, and before the assembly proceeds to deliberate upon the case, both parties to the personality should retire, it being a general rule that no member should be present in the assembly when any matter relating to himself is under debate. It is not, however, necessary for the member objecting to the words to retire unless he is personally involved in the case. Disorderly words to the presiding officer, or in respect to the official acts of an officer, do not involve the officer so as to require him to retire. If any business has taken place since the member spoke, it is too late to take notice of any disorderly words he used.