4

[Motion] Motion to adopt guidelines for textual structure of motions

Submitted by Xesau in parliament

Parliament,

observing that motions do not have to conform to a certain textual structure,

considering that formalizing a structure could help to streamline the parliamental prodecure,

proposes that parliament adopt the following textual structure for motions;

Parliament,

(having heard the deliberation,)

(observing that

  • [one or more observations],)

(considering that

  • [one or more considerations],)

[one or more actions in the present indicative, separated by a semi-colon],

and proceed to the order of the day.

names of petitioners

proposes that this template also be included in the sidebar,

and proceeds to the order of the day.

Xesau

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

2

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

For. Consistency and clarity are important. This would be good for the Raddit Parliament.

1

Xesau wrote

I believe I made a spelling mistake.

and proceed to the order of the day.

should have been

and proceeds to the order of the day.

1

Doormouse_Jessup wrote

WHEREAS it has been established that a standardized means for communicating motions hasn't been established and

WHEREAS a standardized means for proposals needs to be established, and

WHEREAS that observations can be included in the WHEREAS sections and

WHEREAS that additional proposals and conclusions can be included in "IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED" sections and

IT IS RESOLVED that the proper means for motions follow the "WHEREAS" AND "IT IS RESOLVED" model.

The fundamental thing I am trying to point out here is that the basics of what is being proposed (things like "order of the day", etc.) are established and outlined in Roberts Rules. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

2

Xesau wrote

IT IS RESOLVED that the proper means for motions follow the "WHEREAS" AND "IT IS RESOLVED" model.

it is resolved and whereas are not inherently "more proper" than observing and considering

However, using the structure which I have proposed, with "Parliament" as subject of the sentence and not the person who submits the motion, the content of the motion is completely clear irrespective of the context or the person reading it. In my opinion that is far better than "I move that ..."

There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

This is a false comparison. Robers Rules are designed for deliberation in a physical space, not online discussion.