Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Suggestions on meeting structure.

Since the last meeting took place alot of things has happend due to the meeting and lack of structure. At least in my view that was one of the majorproblems.

So my propasal is as follows:

Meeeting structure:

Every meeting should elect a chairman and a secretary.

The secretary to keep notes and the chairman to keep the order of the meeting. The secratary may also brief late particpants on what have been discussed and decided, doing so in an IM.

The chairmans job is to hand out premition to speak amongst the participants of the meeting.

Before speaking every participant must first call out his or her name and may not speak until the chairman says so, even during a heated argument.

When calling out their name chairman and secretary notes the person calling out said name and will be put on speakerslist.

This is to avoid meaningless chatter and chaos. This is also the most democratic way since everybody will have a chance to say what they want without interruptions.

when the discussion is ended the chairman will ask if the meeting is ready to move on to a dission, if the meeting is not ready the chairman will let the discussion move on.

Any participant may at any time call for "end of discussion". The chairman will then ask the meeting if we may end this discussion. This means that nobody else can put their name on the speakerslist, the list will be final. Everybody that is already on the list may however speak.

On dissions

Every dission should be put against another dission. The only opition to vote will be "yes".

The chairman will ask the meeting "shall we support x proposition" and those who agree will vote yes then the chairman will ask "sall we support y proposition" and those in favor of that proposion may vote yes, the suggestion with most votes wins. If there is more then one proposition then the first to proposion goes one round, the winning one will be put forward to the third one til there is only one left and that will be the final dission.

On protocals

Every protocal should have a list of these things:


Elecetion of

a) chairman.

b) secretary.

the other points to the agenda should already have been decided beforehand the meeting but if somebody has something else on their mind they want to put up on the protocall that should be done at the point of "other questions". Every thing that hasent been on the protocall is to be put under that label. Every meeting must follow these structurs.

On election to committies

When electing people to a board or to a comittie there must be an election committie that has prepared list on names. People on the election committie can not at the sametime be a member of the Central Committie nor candidate for it.

When electing people to the central committie, in our case the building and organising committie there will first be a debate where you can suggest your candidate but not badmouth others.
This is to keep up a good spirit.

On the election itself there will be one votecounter, in normal cases there are more then one but due to techinal issues this would be the best solution. The vote will be secret so everybody will IM the votecounter. If you like the list of people just send an IM saying "I'm ok with the list" if not mention the name of the candidate you want and one candidate who you want stricken of the list. Because somebody has to go so there will be an even number so there wont be a "bonus" candidate.

The votecounter can of course not be a member of the CC but may be a member of the election committie.

Following these rules meetings will go along much smoother, faster and most important more democraticly. The alternative to these rules are chaos, anarchy and unclear dissions. I urge you people to really consider these rules they have been functioning for ages, same rules for communist as socialdemocrats to trade-unions and even syndicalists. They work and they ensure democracy.

P.S I apologize for the many spelling errors the is due to my computer not having a functing spelling control.

No comments: