Guest Guest Posted May 29, 2015 at 08:58 PM Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 at 08:58 PM Hello. Now that the fully updated 2nd edition of Robert's Rules in brief is in print, is the previous edition considered obsolete? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted May 29, 2015 at 09:06 PM Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 at 09:06 PM I think that it is as obsolete as the 10th edition of RONR (you should use the current edition of RONR). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted May 29, 2015 at 09:10 PM Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 at 09:10 PM I think that it is as obsolete as the 10th edition of RONR . . . And I wouldn't describe either as "obsolete". Better the 10th edition of RONR (and the first edition of RONR In Brief) than no editions at all. The basics remain the same. Is my 2001 Subaru obsolete? My Windows XP computer? My flip phone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 29, 2015 at 09:35 PM Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 at 09:35 PM Yes, but what about the owner of those decrepit devices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted May 29, 2015 at 09:38 PM Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 at 09:38 PM Yes, but what about the owner of those decrepit devices? He's grateful to have a car, a computer, and a phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted May 29, 2015 at 10:31 PM Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 at 10:31 PM I've compared the 1st edition of RONR in Brief to the 2nd edition and found very few changes. I don't know that I would say that any of them are particularly substantive, but I may have missed something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 30, 2015 at 12:29 AM Report Share Posted May 30, 2015 at 12:29 AM Page references to RONR/11 have appreciably changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted May 30, 2015 at 12:37 AM Report Share Posted May 30, 2015 at 12:37 AM Page references to RONR/11 have appreciably changed. Does the 1st edition of RONR In Brief reference the 10th Edition of RONR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted May 30, 2015 at 09:07 AM Report Share Posted May 30, 2015 at 09:07 AM Page references to RONR/11 have appreciably changed. Does the 1st edition of RONR In Brief reference the 10th Edition of RONR?Yes, the 1st edition of RONR in Brief has references to page numbers in the 10th edition of RONR in the citations and footnotes. The 2nd edition of in Brief has citations to the 11th edition of RONR. I was referring to not having noticed any significant changes in the actual text between the 1st and 2nd editions of RONR in Brief. I might have missed some and that statement could also depend on one's interpretation of what is a "significant change". The major differences between the two editions, as i see it, are in the page citations to RONR. RONR In Brief does contain extensive citations to RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted May 30, 2015 at 02:25 PM Report Share Posted May 30, 2015 at 02:25 PM Yes, the 1st edition of RONR in Brief has references to page numbers in the 10th edition of RONR in the citations and footnotes. The 2nd edition of in Brief has citations to the 11th edition of RONR. Thanks. I was confused when Mr. Stackpole said that "page references to RONR/11 have appreciably changed". I wondered, changed from what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 30, 2015 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted May 30, 2015 at 02:57 PM I've compared the 1st edition of RONR in Brief to the 2nd edition and found very few changes. I don't know that I would say that any of them are particularly substantive, but I may have missed something. There are a few, such as the change made in the definition of a "majority vote" and a "two-thirds vote", but who cares about such trifling matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 1, 2015 at 07:30 PM Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 07:30 PM I will retire my first edition of rules in brief, right beside my RRO 10th edition, rather than share it so as to avoid any confusion. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrEntropy Posted June 1, 2015 at 08:22 PM Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 08:22 PM I will retire my first edition of rules in brief, right beside my RRO 10th edition, rather than share it so as to avoid any confusion. Thanks I would opine that you should go ahead and share it with someone else who would benefit from learning the basics of parliamentary procedure. They can learn the basics as well from the 1st edition (RONRIB) and they can from the 2nd edition. Perhaps it will encourage them to go out and by the 11th edition of the full RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted June 2, 2015 at 08:03 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 at 08:03 PM I would opine that you should go ahead and share it with someone else who would benefit from learning the basics of parliamentary procedure. They can learn the basics as well from the 1st edition (RONRIB) and they can from the 2nd edition. Perhaps it will encourage them to go out and by the 11th edition of the full RONR. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 2, 2015 at 08:09 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 at 08:09 PM I will retire my first edition of rules in brief, right beside my RRO 10th edition, rather than share it so as to avoid any confusion. Thanks I would opine that you should go ahead and share it with someone else who would benefit from learning the basics of parliamentary procedure. They can learn the basics as well from the 1st edition (RONRIB) and they can from the 2nd edition. Perhaps it will encourage them to go out and by the 11th edition of the full RONR. I agree.I agree, too. Other than the change in page references to the 11th edition of RONR, which I believe not many people use anyway, the changes are not that significant. In fact, at this very moment, my 1st edition of RONRIB and my 1st edition of Robert's Rules For Dummies are on loan to friends. Edited to add: One concern I have about NAP basing its new membership test on RONRIB rather than RONR is that new members to our local unit are not buying RONR. They are, however, buying up our supply of RONRIB like they were free hot donuts. Or biegnets. Maybe that's a good thing....at least they are buying and studying something, but I hope they decide before long that they need the real thing. At our unit meetings, we are constantly urging our new members to get RONR and all of our lessons are based on RONR, not RONRIB. They are buying RONRIB because that's what the new membership test is based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.