Talk:Robert's Rules of Order
For visitors needing up-to-date practical information, rather than historical source information, the current title is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. It is not in the public domain and not available on the web. There is, however, a good Q&A forum at www.robertsrules.com --Jeepien (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I've never been at this website before so I don't know how it works. Here's my dilema:
I am at a meeting being conducted under the guise of Robert's Rules:
I believe the following to be true,
Debate is allowable on any of the following motions and subsidiary motions:
1) Main Motion 2) Amemdment regarding main motion 3) Amemdment to the amendment regarding main motion
The parlimentarian has ruled that debate is only allowed on the amendment to the amendment until that issue is resolved, then debate is only allowed on the Amendment to the main motion as amended by the amendment to the amendment and lastly, debate isallowed on the main motion as amended after the previous issues are resolved.
I belive he is wrong, I believe you can rise to address any of the three items and may call for the previous question regarding any of the three items at any time.
- I am unfamiliar with these rules, but I'll start reading this etext now. Wikipedia has a page on the rules at w:Robert's Rules of Order, but it doesnt appear to go into much detail about the rules themselves. I suggest that for the moment you keep looking around the web for sites that may have more information. I've emailed our contributor who added this etext; maybe he can help. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- John asked that I come offer an opinion since I uploaded the text, but I'm afraid I'm not really an expert. We use this for meetings in our church's Board of Deacons (like most US nonprofits) but based on my reading, you would be correct. I would get an outside opinion, though. — atchius (msg) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Notice of datednessEdit
As the posted text is a very deprecated edition of a work still updated and edited, I feel there should be a notice informing readers of the edition (1st edition I believe), that it is deprecated, and that readers would be better served by purchasing the latest edition unless they are interested in comparing editions. Given how communications and styles of meeting have evolved since the original publication of Robert's Rules of Order, not informing them of this would be doing readers a grave disservice. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)