Talk:Parliamentary procedure

(On a slightly related note, there is User:Obuibo Mbstpo/What kind of system is this?. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Also, the motion to reconsider might be compared to deletion review of speedily deleted articles, since both can be used to correct overly hasty action. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there something in RONR about being patient/polite to people who are unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure? I thought that might be parallel to WP:BITE. All I could find was "He should never get excited; he should never be unjust to even the most troublesome member, or take advantage of such member's lack of knowledge of parliamentary law, even though a temporary good might be accomplished thereby." (RONR, 10th ed., p. 440) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought there might be something in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, e.g. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, parallel to "Debate, rightly understood, is an essential element in the making of rational decisions of consequence by intelligent people." (RONR, 10th ed., p. 373). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

seconding

Seconding can work against consensus. Think of the ubiquitous 12 angry men example. It is more common than we like to admit that change starts with just one person. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But then, why do deliberative assemblies require a second? I think it is because of the amount of business they have to handle. If there is only one person who opposes a proposal, then the assembly can cut off debate by a two-thirds vote using previous question and proceed immediately to a vote. It's kinda like the snowball clause. In practice, most assemblies I've seen have let debate run for awhile, even if there seem to be less than one-third opposing a measure, because they recognize the benefits of debate. Now that I think about it, if there's only one person in opposition, he would typically run out of time anyway, since under normal rules of debate, you only get two ten-minute speeches on a question per day (RONR, 10th ed., p. 41).

If a motion cannot even get a second, though, then it cannot be opened for discussion (even though opening it for discussion would have allowed the maker of the motion to explain its benefits in more detail). So, he may wish to do some lobbying before the meeting, and find someone willing to second his motion. It might not be such a bad idea even on Wikipedia to talk to people one-on-one and get feedback before publicly making a proposal – if I had gotten Abd's input on WP:PRX first, we might have gotten it into a form that the community would have accepted. Hard to say. I think it's basically too late now.

Most of the parliamentary procedure I've been studying has been as it related to nonprofit organizations. It would be interesting to look at legislative procedure, which might have some other commonalities with Wikipedia decisionmaking.

Because of the nature of the decisions juries make, it makes more sense to require unanimity there than in a deliberative assembly (although I've read that in some cases, the requirement has been reduced to a 9 out of 12 vote). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is related to the fact that many deliberative assemblies are essentially single channel. Sure you can whisper to your neighbor, but strictly speaking (no pun intended) according to the rules, only one person can be speaking at a time, and only one (branch of one) discussion thread can be current at a time. A lot of the rules of order are basically (in networking jargon) a communications protocol for natural language on a single channel + some flags (hands raised). Does that make sense so far? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but if you want an example of a situation in which a lot of time could have been saved if the motion to delete had not come before the assembly for lack of a second, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objection to the consideration of a question. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an assembly ;-) And I doubt much time has been won or lost by that particular action. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WordNet defines "assembly" as "a public facility to meet for open discussion" or "a group of persons gathered together for a common purpose." So, I think we are an assembly, but perhaps not a deliberative assembly. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Alright then.

Can you identify how .. well, let's stick to wikipedia... can you identify how wikipedia differs from the deliberative assemblies I discussed above, in communications terms? How many channels can wikipedia have open at one time? How many discussion thread branches... etc... ? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, it's not unlike a legislative body in which you can have many different committees working on different things, but each member can only be one place at the same time (as a practical matter, while you might switch from page to page, and have different tabs open, etc. and thus shift from one activity to the next much more quickly than you would in a physical assembly, you generally aren't really focusing all your energy on two different things at the same exact second.) And subcommittees can be formed to consider sub-proposals, and so on. Theoretically, there is an unlimited number of such committees, but in practice, it's limited by how much 435 members (or however many there are) can do. Similarly, we can have an unlimited number of threads open, but at some point, some will have to go dormant, or participation will drop in some, just because there's a limit to how much 6,000 active Wikipedians and the less active contributors have time to do. So, if you divert people's time to something unnecessarily, it can hurt the project elsewhere. (For instance, Abd has been working on some kind of pre-arbitration thing which I haven't delved into, but in all likelihood it relates to some kind of unnecessary drama that, in the end, is distracting from projects like WP:WPWR.) The waste of time involved in processes whose result is obvious from the beginning is a major reason why we have WP:SNOW. The difference is, WP:SNOW can only take place after a bunch of people have put time into it. I would cite Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alkivar as another example. That one actually had a second, but I wonder if we had the seconding system in place, whether people might be more reluctant to put their name on the line as saying, "Yes, I want to force the community to have to deal with this lame MFD"? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Of course, some would say that stuff like User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Chess is an even worse waste of time, but my response is, would you rather me stay here, where I'm playing chess and checking my watchlist, or would you rather I go to Yahoo Chess?

RONR notes, "The subsidiary motion to Commit or Refer is generally used to send a pending question to a relatively small group of selected persons–a committee–so that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider." (RONR, 10th ed., p. 160) On Wikipedia, anyone can start their own committee (although the assembly may attempt to forcibly discharge a committee through WP:MFD; fortunately, I think you have taken measures to put a stop to that). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Caucusing: Good or bad for organizations?

Cross-posted to ParliParkingLot

As always, I was perusing the Wikipedia Village Pump, where members are embroiled in a debate over whether we should allow users to opt-in to be contacted on their user talk pages about pending decisions that might interest them. The argument against it was that it would distort the outcome of debate, as users formed like-minded groups to force their point of view on the community. I raised the argument that we have seen caucuses work well in deliberative assembly for centuries, and that they are an inevitable and beneficial influence. Then I wondered, is that really true?

RONR has little to say on the subject of caucusing, other than mentioning its existence: "...[M]embers...may need or wish to meet as a group to decide how they will act in reference to certain matters...The term caucus is...sometimes applied to a similar meeting of all the known or admitted partisans of a particular position on an important issue–in a convention or any other deliberative assembly–who meet to plan strategy toward a desired result within the assembly." (p. 587-588)

My thought is that caucusing is generally a good thing. It is another avenue for members to communicate information to interested parties, rather than consuming the time of the assembly as a whole by making an announcement. It is not much different than the concept of moving to commit or refer a matter. The goal is to allow, in an assembly with limited to handle much business, multiple issues to be worked on simultaneously by dividing communication into separate channels, and splitting into break-out groups. We see this done in classrooms, the business world, etc. The difference is that caucusing happens spontaneously and informally.

The other advantage is that caucusing can help members protect their own rights by teaming up with like-minded individuals who will keep them informed. Otherwise, an adversary might be doing something nefarious and you might never realize what is going on. In some ways, NAP might be considered a caucus, in that we keep one another informed of developments like changes in the Model Nonprofit Corporation Act that otherwise we might not be aware of.

I have seen limitations put of caucusing, though. In the convention of my fraternity, for instance, we were allowed to pass notes via messengers, but we were not allowed to use electronic devices to caucus, as it could give some an unfair advantage. Also, many countries have restrictions on political parties, as they view some of their activities as inimical to the political process.

Another disadvantage of caucusing is that people can use it to gain control and disenfranchise members that are less adept at, or interested in, organizing such groups. I am reminded of this story from Leon Trotsky's biography:

"At the party's Second Congress in 1903 Trotsky opposed Lenin and the Bolsheviks, siding with the Mensheviks. His characteristic independence, however, kept him from cementing any organizational ties . . . Trotsky was not in a position to take over. Never particularly adept at party politics, he failed to outmaneuver the troika of Grigory Zinovyev, Lev Kamenev, and Stalin that took power. Although he put himself at the head of a loosely knit left opposition, Trotsky's polemic salvos were no match for Stalin's bureaucratic party machine. In 1925 his adversaries removed him from the Commissariat of War; in 1926 they expelled him from the Politburo; and in 1928 Stalin exiled him to Central Asia and in 1929 expelled him from the USSR."

So then, is caucusing generally a good or bad influence? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Subversion branching

Someone asked what is the alternative to allowing caucusing. Here is my response:

The alternative is a situation like Wikipedia's, in which caucusing is theoretically prohibited, but in practice, continues to go on clandestinely through channels that they can't monitor.

By the way, I pretty much agree with the assessment expressed earlier that Wikipedia's lack of consistent governance could doom it to irrelevance, unless something is done.

Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote this interesting paragraph in his memoir:

"Some questions have been raised about the origin of Wikipedia policies. The tale is interesting and instructive, and one of the main themes of this memoir. We began with no (or few) policies in particular and said that the community would determine--through a sort of vague consensus, based on its experience working together--what the policies would be. The very first entry on a 'rules to consider' page was the 'Ignore All Rules' rule (to wit: 'If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business'). This is a 'rule' that, current Wikipedians might be surprised to learn, I personally proposed. The reason was that I thought we needed experience with how wikis should work, and even more importantly at that point we needed participants more than we needed rules. As the project grew and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular 'rule' and then rejected it altogether. As one participant later commented, 'this rule is the essence of Wikipedia.' That was certainly never my view; I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc."

I am reminded of Henry M. Robert's quote: "Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty."

I am also reminded of what Robert's Rules of Order says on p. 440: "The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgment is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceful disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business. But in large assemblies where there is much work to be done, and especially where there is likelihood of trouble, the only safe course is to require strict observance of the rules." (RONR, 10th ed., p. 440)

Wikipedia has outgrown the stage in which it could have gotten by without consistent governance, but it refuses to change. Another statement of Larry Sanger's lends insight into why: "I suspect that the cultures of online communities generally are established pretty quickly and then very resistant to change, because they are self-selecting; that was certainly the case with Wikipedia, anyway." As dissidents get driven away, the remaining group is all the more supportive of the status quo, so it becomes very hard to make headway.

But I think creative solutions can be developed for getting around this apparent brick wall. Previous attempts to supersede Wikipedia through "forks" have not been successful. Wikipedia appears to simply has too much momentum for someone to easily start a comprehensive project that could compete with them in that way. The answer may be a system known as "subversion branching," by which parallel wikis can be set up that interact with and build upon Wikipedia, but have independent version control systems in place that largely render irrelevant the problems caused by Wikipedia's governance issues. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)