Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Decorum

[Daniel Dove <ddove@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Scott,

I specifically requested at the last meeting for people to communicate to me if they felt a breach of decorum was taking place.

Being human, and often concentrating on what comes next, background communications on schedules, etc, I may not see or hear something that offends. I need the rest of the Study Group to help.

My Gtalk address is ddove@xxxxxxx and anyone in the Study Group who wishes to send me an instant-message if they are concerned about speaking out, can do so.

We do need to be considerate of the fact that honest people can have different opinions. We also need to consider our language and if we dispute a fact, disagree with the fact not the person. Its easy to say "You are wrong!" when a more appropriate statement would be "I disagree with your numbers!", and then proceed to identify where the numbers are wrong.

If I become aware of a decorum violation (in the chair's opinion) I plan to halt the meeting, review the rules of decorum, and have it noted in the minutes that the chair felt this was necessary. If this occurs more than once, I might seek additional measures if a particular party is offending the group.

I ask the entire Study Group to help me. If you see something you think is over the line, address the person in the hallway (using appropriate decorum of course) and let them know your concern, and request that they re-consider their tone/words/actions.

My general approach to things is to keep it loose, keep a sense of humor, assume people are adults and can take a little heat without getting offended, but also know where the line is and stay on the appropriate side. If we cannot operate under that model, the result will be stricter interpretation, less tolerance, official recourse. 

Best Regards,

Dan

From: Scott Kipp <skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Scott Kipp <skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:39:24 -0700
To: 100G Group <STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] More Decorum Violations

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.