Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Typos in the 11th edition


Hieu H. Huynh

Recommended Posts

I may have an interesting item. 

 

On page 182, lines 12-13 say

"Is debatable; but debate is limited in that is must not go into the merits of the main question". . .

 

Should it say

"Is debatable; but debate is limited in that it must not go into the merits of the main question". . .?

 

Yep, you've found a typo in the 11th edition, which is something that's not easy to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 1/19/2016 at 0:33 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said:

How about this one from the In Brief book:

At the bottom of page 48 of RONRIB, the last word in the box is "resolution". Should it be "motion" instead?

Probably it should.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few mistakes in RONRIB, although this one was not yet on our list!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2016 at 8:20 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said:

In the 11th edition:

On page 618, line 34, the reference "p. 607, ll. 18-21" doesn't seem to be related to "the seating of delegates and alternates" from the previous line. Should it be some other reference?

 

On 1/26/2016 at 8:19 PM, Ann Rempel, PRP, CPP-T said:

Perhaps the reference should be p. 607, ll. 24-29.

Page 607, ll. 18-21, in which RONR states, "The work of organizing and preparing for a convention normally . . . involves many committees, under the general direction of the officers and the board of the association" is indeed one of the intended references in relation to the rule on page 618 that "Until the proposed standing rules are adopted, the convention is governed by the rules in the organization's parliamentary authority."

The placement of that reference next to the phrase "such as those concerning the seating of delegates and alternates" was perhaps inartful drafting, but I wouldn't call it a typographical error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This is not specifically a typo, per se, but I feel that the paragraph at the bottom of pg. 263 and the top of pg. 264 could use some love. It begins by saying that a rule protecting absentees cannot be suspended, and then goes on to imply, but not directly say, that they can be suspended if there are no absentees. I think it should be explicit that, if all people protected by the rule are present, then the rule can be suspended (with the exception noted in the footnote). Additionally, I think it would be helpful to refer to this paragraph in the index under "suspension of notice of meetings" and similar things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sean Hunt said:

This is not specifically a typo, per se, but I feel that the paragraph at the bottom of pg. 263 and the top of pg. 264 could use some love. It begins by saying that a rule protecting absentees cannot be suspended, and then goes on to imply, but not directly say, that they can be suspended if there are no absentees. I think it should be explicit that, if all people protected by the rule are present, then the rule can be suspended (with the exception noted in the footnote). Additionally, I think it would be helpful to refer to this paragraph in the index under "suspension of notice of meetings" and similar things.

Perhaps it ought to say:

"Absentees who are present are not protected by rules protecting absentees, but even absentees who are present cannot consent to suspension of rules protecting absentees (unless there aren’t any, in which event they can).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

"Absentees who are present are not protected by rules protecting absentees, but even absentees who are present cannot consent to suspension of rules protecting absentees (unless there aren’t any, in which event they can).

It's true that absentees who are present are not protected by rules protecting absentees who are absent, but surely they are protected by rules protecting absentees who are present, because they are both.    The problem is that they don't need the protection unless they do, in which case it is too late.  So it may be best just to leave the language as is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
5 hours ago, BrianP said:

I'm just beginning in the book as my question is page 4.

RONR (11th ed.) p. 4, l. 30 - the word "bases" should be "basis" to match

RONR (11th ed.) p. 5, l.4

Sounds the same but there is a subtle difference in the meaning.

I think the first case is the plural of basis, which is why bases is used. The second case is singular.

If anything, in your first case, perhaps the plural, decisions, would be a better fit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...