Default Rules of Procedure, Unpacked

The following are the default rules of procedure.  If adopted unanimously they may only be altered similarly unanimously. 

Parliamentary procedure is full of jargon and unnecessary complexity.  If you like that stuff you can put it in, but the intent here was originally to design the minimum rules of order that could be sufficient for a group of people to come to collective decisions.  This will actually involve some breaking with conventions.  Even simpler rules are possible (quorum is majority of members, meetings start when that number present, speakers cycle by age, turns last one minute, vote on any proposal follows, majority of those present adopts) but not by much and the amount of extra complexity here is well worth it.   

 

The second sentence is actually redundant because the unanimous rules provision later on implies the same thing.   The thing is, a founder either adopts them alone (in which case they're adopted unanimously) or the founder doesn't adopt them before inducting additional members (making non-unanimous adoption possible) but then under what rules did the members get inducted?  Here's the way around that.  The founder adopts the rules alone, inducts a couple of more members, then that small group repeals the unanimous status of the rules adoption and they do it by unanimous vote.  

Organization
An organization is a named group of people with an ordered member list.  The order of a member on the list equates to "seniority."  An organization can induct or expel its members or change their seniority ranking.  

These rules make no distinction between an assembly and a body and a committee.  They are all organizations.  Requiring an ordered member list may seem like adding complexity, but I submit that there will always be a member list and it will be ordered.  It's impossible for it to not be ordered or for an organization to exist without a list.  A group of strangers can assemble in one place and that doesn't have a member list, but it's also not an organization.  Having an ordered member list, which you will always have regardless, is a powerful tool for actually simplifying.  Calling this "seniority" is a bit of going out on a limb, but I think it's worthwhile to give this quality (of being in sequence, order), which we're going to be making use of, a simple name.  It should be harmless since it is subject to change by resolution.  Having a name for the organization is also essential to having an organization.  It's important to require it, especially because of the choice to allow impromptu meetings.  When an organization is called to order in a public place it's important to distinguish what organization is being called to order. Also, the ability of an organization to induct or expel members (presumably by resolution since that's how it does things) is important to point out.   

​

Proposals
Actions of the organization are only made by adoption of resolutions at business meetings.  A business meeting commences whenever a majority of the members of an organization are gathered in a setting such that all are able to communicate with each other in real time and the most senior member present has declared the meeting in progress by clearly stating that the particular meeting is in progress using the name of the organization and the words "is officially meeting as of now."   At that point that most senior member present becomes the designated speaker.  During a business meeting, members take turns as the designated speaker in order of seniority.  The designated speaker, and only the designated speaker may propose resolutions.  The designated speaker proposes a resolution with the words "I propose the following resolution" followed by the wording of the proposed resolution, followed by the words "how say you?". 

 
There's no distinction made here between mass meetings, conventions, etc...There are just meetings.  If you want to make more complex structure you can do so.  If you want to take a break, end the meeting and start a new one.  If you want a series of meetings, have a series of meetings.  For the goal of conciseness, it's important to get to the nitty gritty of what organizations do and what they are for.  They make collective decisions, which we are going to call resolutions, just that and no further distinction between types.  They do so by having meetings, which have one purpose which is to decide on what to resolve.  When a proposal (a motion) is adopted (passes) it becomes a resolution.  The decision was made here to dispense with any rules about having to schedule meetings or deal with agendas.  If a majority of the members are in one place, who cares if the minority weren't told about the meeting in advance?  The decision has been made that a majority can do whatever they want, so it will happen sooner or later anyway. If members of the majority are on the fence such that minority input would have mattered, then they should vote against anything proposed.  If those not at the impromptu meeting are not informed about the results, that reduces the power of the majority because the people it's supposed to lay down the law to aren't even there to get it.  Surely they'll get word from somebody that was there, and frankly if you want to structure publication of minutes and mandatory meeting invitations you can do that.  It's just not essential to minimum stripped down rules of order.  An organization can function with the simple rule that a majority of members being present is enough to call a meeting to order.  Which is actually called "declaring an official meeting in progress."  As for the designated speaker, and later the designated commenter, this makes much simplification possible.  It's equivalent to having "the floor" but for different purposes.  When differing status is assigned to the role of a participant at a given time, rather than to the place of the motion in a hierarchy, great clarity and simplicity results.  Also you may note that there is no chair "recognizing" people.  There is a standard sequence so everybody always gets a turn.  If you think a rigid sequence is unacceptable, add some complex system for shaking it up.  This simple, brutal system serves the goal of minimum complexity without really impairing anything but cake icing and sprinkles.  There is a formulaic method of introducing motions (proposals) that makes clear what part is the resolution that will result.  For example, what is the resolution that results from "I move that we paint the building red"?   The formula, equivalent to quotation marks, sets off the resolution so it's clear what the wording will be and where it starts and ends.  I propose the following resolution.  We authorize the building and grounds committee to paint the building red. How say you?  Or you could say something unclear and it would be obvious that it was unclear.  I propose the following resolution.  That we paint the building red.  How say you?  I say you need to reword that.  Also of course there's no need for seconding.  If you think a resolution isn't worth discussing, say so, insist on the briefest possible discussion (keep standing) and defeat it.  Seconding serves no function.  Members have a right to propose resolutions and have them discussed and voted on.  The body has a right to reject them.  No more complexity is required for an organization to be able to function, and function democratically.  

​

Cycles
There are two kinds of cycles of turns.  The main one is the cycle of speakers, but additionally a speaker's turn may be suspended during a cycle of commentary.  During either, the current active turn ends as soon a majority of members present are standing up or as soon as the currently active turn holder says "remarks complete".   When a turn is ended by standing, the next turn of the currently active cycle doesn't begin until a majority of members present are again seated.  A turn as designated speaker also is ended once a proposal by the speaker has received enough votes to be adopted.  Once a member's turn ends and a majority of members present are seated, the next turn commences, with the next member in order of seniority among those present then starting a period as designated speaker or designated commenter, whichever applies.
 
Should have been "as soon AS a majority."  But it's written in stone now and clear enough. 

 

It's assumed to be clear that "turn" means only one member has a turn at a time.  It's also assumed that "currently active turn holder" is understood to mean the commenter during a commentary cycle, or the designated speaker when not in a commentary cycle.  During the speaker's turn to comment, the speaker saying "remarks complete" to end the comment turn doesn't end the speaker's turn as speaker.  

​

For the ultimate in simplicity, the cycle of commentary (debate) would be dispensed with.  Members would propose resolutions and votes would be taken immediately.  That's stripping it down a bit too much.  For greater complexity of discussion, an organization could allow  multiple cycles of commentary.  I like the idea of indefinite cycles of commentary with this qualification: cycles of commentary end when, on any one cycle, a majority of members said nothing more than "remarks complete."  But that would be more than is strictly necessary.  So I split the difference and provided for one cycle, which creates the foundation for expanding it to something more but doesn't impose too much.  

 

The device of ending member turns when a majority present are standing is an elegant solution to the problem of how to limit debate, and endless strings of pointless motions, without too much complexity or some kind of timer that might limit needed discussions.  Allowing the majority to set the limit, without making it a whole debate of its own, is the simplest solution that respects the importance of the issue.  This also serves the function of solving the sheer preponderance of possible time wasting speech in an organization of any size if you give everyone a turn to speak and everyone else a turn to speak on that speech, as these rules do since they dispense with letting a chair control all that.  Just do the math for a body with 50 members.  If each makes one motion and each speaks on each motion, that's 2500 turns to debate, and if they're one minute each that's approaching two solid days without break.  There's a reason legislative bodies invented committees.  Even using these rules, larger organizations will have to do something like that.  They can use these rules to do so.  One possibility would be to skip the need to say "resolution complete" and just have turns go to someone who is somehow signaling a desire to get a turn.  Failing to raise a hand equals passing, and only those who actually have something to say actually get a comment turn.  That might save time.  

 

The last two sentences of the section are precisely engineered to ensure a speaker can make a series of attempts at a resolution, and admit each failure, but a speaker's resolution must be declared successful only by someone else.  Note there are no amendments.  Commentary might suggest changes, and the speaker may heed them in composing a revision to produce a later proposal, but commentary is just talk.  It has no power to change what is being considered.  There is always no more than one "question" from the original proposer, who still has "the floor."  Thereby no restating of which question is being voted on is necessary and that's something else that can be cut out.  There is no tier of types of motions.  There is just a proposal for something which might become a resolution.  Resolutions might be assigned categories, if an organization wants to do something like that.  For instance, a change of bylaws might be hung on the wall, whereas a resolution to adjourn a meeting merely has an effect and it's done.  Also, it's necessary to mention the requirement for a majority to be seated before the next turn commences (or resumes, if going from commenting back to the speaker), because otherwise collateral damage could occur.   Also, note nowhere does it say people who arrive during a cycle after someone junior to them has had a turn get some kind of make up turn.  The person who gets the next turn is always the next most junior present, or when the cycle rolls over it is the most senior present.  If you are so late you miss your turn, you won't get a turn until your regular turn on the next cycle.  

​

Voting

After a proposal is made, there is one cycle of commentary, during which the current designated speaker has no special privileges but the current commenter may speak to comment only. Immediately after a cycle of commentary ends with the end of the turn of the most junior member present, there commences a one-minute period during which the members present may vote in favor of the proposed resolution by raising hands.  The number of votes counted for a proposition is the maximum number raised at once during the voting period.  If a majority of all members of the organization have raised hands simultaneously at any point during the voting minute, the proposition is adopted as a resolution of the organization.  Otherwise, the resolution fails.  After the voting period, all other speaker actions are void until a speaker has stated the vote count and outcome.

 
If a proposal fails, the speaker continues as speaker and resumes as such by announcing the result of the failed vote.  If a proposal is adopted as a resolution, the speaker's turn ends and the next speaker initiates it by announcing the result of the successful vote.  Each speaker gets to make any number of failed proposals (unless the turn is terminated by standing) but only one successful one (per cycle).  

​

Regarding maximum raised hands at one time during a time period (defined, rather than at the whim of the chair), I recommend the movie "The Death of Stalin."  The sequences of the politboro meetings are priceless.  Note regarding the end of a speaker's turn by adoption of a resolution:  it should be fine because cycles are indefinite.  If someone has a lot of resolutions, let them wait until next turn.  If others have resolutions, they should get turns.  If they don't it will go fast, if they do they deserve a turn too.  Putting in procedures to allow multiple resolutions by one speaker doesn't serve an important enough function to justify the added complexity.  It's a solution in search of a problem.  Limiting turns to one successful motion is fine.  You get to try until you get something the group likes or until the group is sick of you and shuts you up.  Then somebody else gets a shot.  Even if your stuff is really really important.  If it's that important, you can pack a lot into one resolution, and the group will patiently work with you.  If they won't, why does your feeling it's important take precedence over the majority?  

​

Effective from the last sentence of this section of the rules is the consequence that the speaker after you declares your resolution adopted, you don't.  And they have to, if it actually passed, or everything they do is void.  If there's some doubt about hands, some unofficial discussion can't hurt.  

​

Now, about the standard to adopt a resolution.  By making the standard "a majority of members" not "a majority of members present" several purposes are served and complexity is reduced.  If in no case does any action of the organization take place without approval of a majority of members, all kinds of worries are allayed about rump meetings foisting stuff in smoke filled rooms.  The quorum is what it is because that's the minimum number of people who could theoretically take official action.   If you can't get a majority  of members together to support something then maybe you shouldn't be doing it.  Alternatively, you may be carrying inactive members who need culling.  If they are the majority, you're doomed anyway.  Don't let it get to that.  An early agenda item for a new organization might be resolutions to have regular meetings and require minimum attendance on pain of expulsion.  Such a resolution could be dangerous though, empowering officials to do what should only be a power of the majority.  There's really no substitute for regularly trimming inactive members by vote of a majority of members the hard way.  Maintenance is vital.  

​

Adjournment
Once the least senior member present has had a turn as designated speaker during a cycle, a new cycle of turns to speak commences, starting with the most senior member present.  Cycles of speakers continue indefinitely.  A business meeting ends when a majority of organization members is not present, or when a resolution to end the meeting is adopted. 
 
Allowing speaker cycles to end when a majority on a cycle have used their turn only to say "remarks complete" is one alternative, but actually more complex than just relying on a motion to adjourn, which you would have to have anyway.  If a majority of the members is up for a meeting to continue, it should continue.  To vote against it continuing all you have to do is get up and leave.  It takes a majority of the membership to pass resolutions you know, so no rump parliament will be able to do anything shady.   If a meeting ends but most of the members are nearby, there's no reason a new meeting couldn't assemble and some seniormost member call a new meeting to order.  It's tempting to say that a motion to adjourn should only take a majority of those present.  After all, the precedent is set that a procedural matter, continuation of speaker turns, is based on majority of those present.  But that's the first step to having someone rule what is and is not in order based on a judgment call about what topic it pertains to.  If it isn't built in, with its own silent method of "voting" then it isn't done by some extra kind of resolution.  There's only one kind of resolution and it takes a majority of the membership.  Whose turn it is currently can't possibly be misinterpreted by a judgment call.  Ending a turn doesn't require a majority of membership, but that's not because it is procedural but because it is not a resolution.  Moving to the next speaker, by procedure, does not require a resolution.  The resolution to use that process (to adopt the rules of order) has already passed by a majority of the membership.  An organization could adopt a similar rule for adjournments, which would go like this:  "A speaker may propose to adjourn the meeting.  Such a proposal, provided it has no other elements, is not followed by a cycle of commentary but rather is immediately followed by a minute of voting.  The requirement for such a proposal to be adopted is merely a majority of those present, not a majority if the membership."  But this would add unnecessary complexity for very little real advantage.  Vote to adjourn by leaving.  Alternatively, an organization could make a rule that following the adoption of a motion to adjourn a new meeting cannot be started until one minute later.  That gives people time to get out.  But such a rule would, again, add complexity that might not be necessary.  Better yet, a motion to adjourn could include a provision to not start another meeting for a specified time period.  This would work because of precedence:  the rules of order are just resolutions, old ones at that.  A subsequent resolution can set an exemption to the rule about calling meetings.  

​

Points of Order
All members should attend to what the rules call for and act accordingly, and any member may unofficially speak to point out when these rules dictate something but it isn't happening.   Actions in violation of the rules of order, or dependent on such violations, are void.
 
But that's not to say the rules of order can't be amended.   

 

Under most rules of order, points of order are essentially an attempt to control the behavior of the chair.  They are important because the chair has the power essentially to say what is actually happening.  But they are only as good as the chair.  If a body votes down a point of order, the chair can just miscount the vote.  Or ignore the person who raises it to start with.  Ultimately everything relies on what the mass of members, after the fact, consider void and what they consider valid.  The inclusion of formal points of order and moderators in a rules system is an attempt to keep an organization from ever coming to a schism.  

​

But without a chair, or moderator, points of order don't serve an official function.   There's no need for a system to determine how you get to interrupt the person who has the floor.  Ultimately all a point of order does is tell everybody present that something should be considered void because it's being done wrong, and you can do that just by speaking out of turn unofficially.  The people who have the real power, the majority, will decide what to do with it.  

​

As for this concept of "ruling things out of order" it's pure nonsense, especially when applied to speech content beyond the purely procedural.  Especially destructive to some rules of order is the concept of making it "out of order" to raise a question that has been previously raised, especially since there have to be so many ways to get around this superfluous requirement and so many other ways to get around those workarounds.  When you can move anything you like, all that isn't necessary.  And that's safe, because a speaker can just be shut down by a bunch of people standing up.  You might keep talking, in which case you will be ignored.    You may think that "actions in violation are void" is not official enough, there needs to be somebody to say what is and is not void.  But who says what that person said?  At the end of the day, all that there ever is is what everyone knows is real and true.  Having a moderator reduces consensus on a definition of reality down to a simple yes or no question, so it eases decisiveness, but that's as likely to produce inaccuracy decisively as accuracy.  The role of a moderator is to bring everybody onto the same sheet of music, and that can functionally be played by anyone who can persuasively make a case, even someone without appeal to some authority other than the majority opinion they create.  If all else fails, and multiple realities seem to be in use, a resolution can be proposed defining what has officially happened, and that is functionally the same as a point of order that is then voted on.  It just doesn't officially interrupt or require the proliferation of new kinds of motion.  It's a resolution like the other ones.  If it happened at all.  

​

Foundings
Organizations can be founded by an individual founder establishing the organization by name as operating under particular rules with the founder initially as the only member.  Organizations can also create subordinate organizations. 
 
Any hypothetically existing primordial rules of order which would disallow that could only do so arbitrarily.   

The whole concept of how organizations get founded, if there are no rules of order for them to meet under before they are founded, is sticky.  Usually there's reliance on some vague concept of an imaginary parliamentary authority that exists outside of individual rules of order.  It makes more sense to me to just assume that prior to adopting rules of order you can do anything that would be allowed under any conceivable rules of order.  We can't really know what these primordial rules of order are, so in the absence of adopted rules of order we are constrained by all possible reasonable rules which those primordial rules may entail.  The requirement for reasonability simply means such rules could not possibly include provisions arbitrarily banning very basic necessities that any new organization would need to assume in order to be founded.  An organization of one person could do things unanimously, without any confusion possible about who goes first and such.  Sure, you could write rules that disallow one member organizations, or that require no organization to be founded except on the planet Jupiter, but those would be unreasonable limitations.  So the "universal unwritten parliamentary authority" under which these rules are initially adopted is the common ground which all reasonable rules of order would have to allow.  After the fact, it would be unreasonable to say the initial adoption of the rules was in violation of the current rules, regardless of what those rules might be.  Unanimous acclamation is such a method of adoption.  Further, anyone who joins an organization already operating under certain rules is tacitly voting for the use of those rules, so the unanimity remains.  This system is not that different from hazily distinguishing someone as having hazily assembled a "mass meeting,"  it's just more elegant.    

​

The "subordinate organization" stuff makes it possible to create a complex organizational structure.  All parts are treated as separate organizations with relationships to each other.  This replaces a bunch of built in complexity about "committees."  Committees are organizations like any other that use rules of order.  If  you want to build in rules about how they relate to each other or the parent organization, build all that with resolutions.  You have the tools.  

​

Precedence
Subsequent resolutions of an organization take precedence over earlier resolutions of that organization where they conflict, except that a resolution approved unanimously by the membership can only be superseded by another unanimous resolution.  The resolutions of a superior organization bind its subordinate organizations and take precedence over any resolutions the subordinate organization makes for itself. 
 
The fact that subsequent resolutions have priority over earlier ones is obvious but it has to be said.  

I've set a very high bar for a special kind of resolution that cannot be changed without again meeting that very high bar.  

Unanimity is practically obtainable only in very small organizations, ie at early stages of an organization's establishment.   The founders can establish an immutable code.  If they don't want it to be immutable they can adopt it with a vote against or with an absent member.  In that case, the rules can always be amended by regular resolutions of the organization that adopted them.  This means it's possible to break the system.  For instance, you could make voting well nigh impossible, such as by requiring members to indicate positive votes by levitating.  So don't do that.  Thoroughly think through the consequences of amending these rules before voting for amendments.   And consider making enough immutable early on that the system won't be fragile.   

​

But all ill advised amendments won't be obvious.  Someone could add a "clarification" of the meaning of something that changes it all.  Be wary beforehand, and if the results of something are disastrous combat it by attempting to repeal it or, failing that, by attempting to nullify it.  It could be argued that an amendment making it difficult to make new resolutions, even if it doesn't expressly change the standard, should be considered void under this rule.  The criterion for accepting such an objection should be based on an analysis of the difficulty of repealing the amendment in question.  If it's harder to repeal the amendment than it was to adopt it then the amendment effectively gave a prior resolution (itself) precedence over any subsequent resolution.  Perhaps one amendment to make unanimously could be this: any resolution affecting the making of resolutions can always be repealed under the same standards in effect at the time the resolution was initially adopted.  Until then, argue against it with points of order and correct for it with regular resolutions.  Declaring a resolution to have been void (as opposed to simply repealing it) should always be done as soon as possible after it is made because the complexity of the poisoned fruit could get horrendous.  One corrective to that is to ratify the poisoned fruit while voiding the poison.  That's why it's better to use a resolution rather than an appeal to voiding via a point of order.  Argue only that the only element that should be voided is the part making a repeal harder.  

​

A body up to about 50 members can meet and deliberate as one body.  Any larger than that becomes unmanageable, and if those members have outside lives and debate isn't to be dominated by a few lead players 20 is a more reasonable number.  Thus, for one thing, bodies that can meet as one body can always have a chance of getting unanimity.  Second, organizations larger than the 20 to 50 range cannot exist as one simple body.  They have to be organizations of organizations.  These rules provide for that in the form of "subordinate organizations."  These are often called "committees" but "subordinate organizations" is more broad.  

​

SAMPLE MEETINGS
A transcript of a founding meeting would go like this:  
FOUNDER: "OrganizationName is officially meeting as of now. I propose the following resolution: We name ourselves OrganizationName, we induct me as a member, and we adopt the Default Rules of Procedure as our Rules of Order. How say you?...(raises hand).  One of one votes in favor, resolution adopted.  I propose the following resolution: this meeting is adjourned.  How say you?...(raises hand).  One of one votes in favor, meeting is adjourned."  

After recruiting Tom, Dick and Harry, the founder might invite them to a meeting place and the transcript would go like this"

FOUNDER (as speaker): "OrganizationName is officially meeting as of now. I propose the following resolution: We induct Tom, Dick and Harry as members, in that order.  How say you?"
(raises hand). 
FOUNDER (as speaker again) One of one votes in favor, resolution adopted.  Remarks complete."
TOM (as speaker): "I propose the following resolution: We choose to paint the building blue. How say you?"
FOUNDER (as commenter): "We should paint it red. Remarks complete."
TOM (as commenter): "I can change the resolution if you all want. Remarks complete."
DICK (as commenter): "I like red better. Remarks complete."
HARRY (as commenter): "Let's not paint it at all.  Remarks complete."
...only Founder raises a hand.
TOM (as speaker): "One of four votes in favor, proposal rejected.  I propose the following resolution: We choose to paint the building red.  How say you?" 
FOUNDER (as commenter): "That's better. Remarks complete."
TOM (as commenter): "That's two of us OK with it.  Remarks complete."
DICK (as commenter): "Three. Remarks complete." 
HARRY (as commenter): "We can't afford it and don't need it.  We were just founded and have no building or treasury.  In fact--"
DICK (unofficially) "Three members are standing, so it's Tom's' turn to resume as Speaker...now that I've sat back down.  But that ended the cycle so we should be voting."
...Tom, Founder, and Dick raise hands.
DICK (as speaker) "Three of four votes in favor, resolution adopted."
HARRY (out of order and void) "No fair, you ganged up on me.  I counted three votes against."  
DICK (as speaker):"Nothing to say.  Remarks complete"
HARRY (as speaker):"OK, you win.  Remarks complete"
FOUNDER (as speaker):"Nothing to say.  Remarks complete"
TOM (as speaker):"Nothing to say.  Remarks complete"
DICK(as speaker):"I propose the following resolution: This meeting is adjourned.  How say you?" "
FOUNDER (as commenter): "OK. Remarks complete."
TOM (as commenter): "That's two of us OK with it.  Remarks complete."
DICK (as commenter): "Three. Remarks complete." 
HARRY (as commenter): "Indeed. Remarks complete.
...Tom, Founder, Dick, and Harry raise hands.
HARRY (as speaker):"Four of four votes in favor, meeting is adjourned."