roberts-rules

name	roberts-rules
description	Parliamentary procedure as forcing function for genuine deliberation
allowed-tools	["read_file","write_file"]
tier	1
protocol	ROBERTS-RULES
credits	Mike Gallaher — LLM adaptation; Henry Martyn Robert — original rules (1876)
related	["adversarial-committee","society-of-mind","rubric","evaluator","session-log"]
tags	["moollm","procedure","deliberation","decision","structure","parliamentary"]

Robert's Rules

"Structure forces genuine exploration of the decision space."

Parliamentary procedure prevents LLMs from short-circuiting to statistically-likely conclusions.

The Stages

procedure:
  stages:
    1_call_to_order:
      chair: "Announces meeting purpose"
      required: true
      
    2_review_minutes:
      purpose: "What did we decide last time?"
      source: "Previous meeting minutes"
      action: "Amendments or approval"
      
    3_new_business:
      purpose: "Topics requiring decision"
      format: "List of agenda items"
      
    4_motion:
      who: "Any member"
      format: "I move that [specific action]"
      requirement: "Must be actionable"
      
    5_second:
      who: "Different member"
      format: "I second the motion"
      meaning: "Worth discussing (not agreement)"
      if_no_second: "Motion dies"
      
    6_debate:
      structure: "Pro, con, pro, con..."
      time_limits: "Optional per speaker"
      amendments: "Can be proposed during debate"
      
    7_vote:
      methods: [voice, show_of_hands, roll_call]
      record: "All positions logged"
      threshold: "Simple majority unless specified"
      
    8_adjourn:
      chair: "Meeting closed"
      next_meeting: "Scheduled if needed"

Implementation

# meeting/MEETING.yml
meeting:
  id: strategy-review-2026-01-05
  committee: strategy-board
  chair: joe  # Continuity guardian runs the meeting
  
  minutes_from: strategy-review-2025-12-15.yml
  
  agenda:
    - "Client X engagement decision"
    - "Q1 pricing review"
    
  status: in_progress
  current_stage: debate

Motion Format

motion:
  id: motion-001
  mover: frankie
  text: "I move that we accept Client X with explicit scope boundaries."
  
  second:
    by: tammy
    timestamp: "2026-01-05T14:23:00Z"
    
  status: under_debate

Debate Structure

debate:
  motion: motion-001
  
  speakers:
    - speaker: frankie
      position: pro
      points:
        - "Budget aligned with our capacity"
        - "Exciting growth opportunity"
        - "Clear deliverables defined"
        
    - speaker: maya
      position: con
      points:
        - "Reputation for scope creep"
        - "Similar clients have burned us"
        - "Opportunity cost for other work"
        
    - speaker: vic
      position: pro_with_reservations
      points:
        - "Financials look solid"
        - "But we lack scope creep data"
        - "Suggest milestone-based contract"
        
    - speaker: joe
      position: defer
      points:
        - "2022 client was similar, went badly"
        - "But circumstances differ"
        - "Need more information"
        
    - speaker: tammy
      position: conditional_pro
      points:
        - "If we add explicit scope boundaries..."
        - "And milestone-based billing..."
        - "Risk becomes manageable"

Amendment Process

amendment:
  to: motion-001
  mover: vic
  text: "Add: with milestone-based billing and quarterly scope review"
  
  second:
    by: tammy
    
  vote:
    for: [frankie, vic, tammy, joe]
    against: [maya]
    result: passes
    
  motion_now: "Accept Client X with explicit scope boundaries, milestone-based billing, and quarterly scope review"

Vote Recording

vote:
  motion: motion-001 (as amended)
  method: roll_call
  
  votes:
    frankie: aye
    maya: nay
    joe: aye
    vic: aye
    tammy: aye
    
  result:
    for: 4
    against: 1
    abstain: 0
    
  outcome: PASSES
  
  minority_view:
    maya: "I remain concerned about scope creep risk. Recording my objection for the minutes."

Minutes Format

# meeting/minutes/strategy-review-2026-01-05.yml
minutes:
  meeting_id: strategy-review-2026-01-05
  date: "2026-01-05"
  attendees: [maya, frankie, joe, vic, tammy]
  chair: joe
  
  previous_minutes: approved_without_amendment
  
  motions:
    - id: motion-001
      text: "Accept Client X with explicit scope boundaries, milestone-based billing, and quarterly scope review"
      outcome: PASSES (4-1)
      dissent: maya
      
  action_items:
    - assignee: vic
      task: "Draft milestone-based contract"
      due: "2026-01-12"
      
    - assignee: tammy
      task: "Design quarterly scope review process"
      due: "2026-01-10"
      
  next_meeting: "2026-01-12 to review contract"

Commands

Command	Action
CALL TO ORDER	Begin meeting
REVIEW MINUTES	Read and approve previous
NEW BUSINESS [item]	Add agenda item
MOVE [action]	Propose motion
SECOND	Support motion for debate
DEBATE	Open structured discussion
AMEND [change]	Propose motion modification
CALL THE QUESTION	End debate, proceed to vote
VOTE	Record positions
ADJOURN	Close meeting

Why This Prevents Short-Circuiting

Without Structure	With Robert's Rules
LLM jumps to "likely" answer	Must build case through stages
Hidden assumptions stay hidden	Debate surfaces them
Minority views lost	Recorded in minutes
No accountability	Votes create record
"Everyone agrees" illusion	Actual disagreement visible