RRO is used for the US Congress. That may be why it was developed.
It is far from perfect, but I feel it works.
I have been in many RRO meetings, and a few "CBDM" meetings.
I worked for a Japanese corporation for a long time, and saw their consensus system, which was painful, but worked. It was completely different from the "CBDM" meetings I've attended.
I once wrote up a very complete presentation and paper on real CBDM, but no one was ever interested in learning about it.
In my experience, most CBDM meetings aren't actually designed for "consensus." They are designed to let "the people that matter" accelerate the process of getting what they want.
RRO is used for the US Congress. That may be why it was developed.
The US House of Representatives uses a set of rules based on Jefferson's Manual. Bill flow is a bit different than Roberts Rules of Order, but the concepts are very similar.
Thanks. I stand corrected. I just assumed (ASS out of U and ME), because I see them use the same language. I think there’s something in the intro to RRO about it, as well.
Been awhile since I read it. It’s not light reading.
Also, most folks use modern versions (copyrighted, so not open-sourced) of RRO.
It is far from perfect, but I feel it works.
I have been in many RRO meetings, and a few "CBDM" meetings.
I worked for a Japanese corporation for a long time, and saw their consensus system, which was painful, but worked. It was completely different from the "CBDM" meetings I've attended.
I once wrote up a very complete presentation and paper on real CBDM, but no one was ever interested in learning about it.
In my experience, most CBDM meetings aren't actually designed for "consensus." They are designed to let "the people that matter" accelerate the process of getting what they want.