I have participated in discussion groups run by parliamentary procedure or a reasonable facsimile of that procedure. In my experience, there is a chairman or chairwoman. There may be an agenda, often sent out beforehand. It is a list of items or issues that the group needs to discuss and often, take action upon. I think that formally, a motion needs to be made and seconded to provide some foundation for discussion and approval or rejection. Often, the chair permits discussion by various speakers in something like a search for a clear statement of a proposed stand or procedure.
For more than 30 years, I was a member of a semi-formal academic group that used such a procedure and I contributed my two cents, maybe even ten cents or more, to the discussion. Once, a senior member said to me, "Kirby, I'd like to sit on you." I took that to mean he considered me to be an over-contributor and/or frequently disagreed with my comments. There were times when the group voted in the opposite way from my vote. In a small group like that, it is quite clear who voted for and who, against. At times like those, I had difficulty seeing how the majority could vote the "wrong" way.
I sometimes feel as though things would be better if I had a vote but others didn't. I can usually see so clearly what the better way would be and yet many others can't. Believe it or not, those voting the wrong way often feel they can explain to me why I am in error!
