There are some procedural usages that I have encountered in club, party meetings, party conferences, local government sessions in Germany in the last 3-4 decades that I am curious whether these are also encountered in English-speaking countries.
I do not claim these usages are universal in Germany - there is no overall manual of order, and every club/assembly/meeting passes its own rules of order (Geschäftsordnung), or for ad hoc meetings follows custom or sometimes personal authority.
To ask to speak on a topic you attract the attention of the chair, often by raising a hand. The chair then notes you on the list of speakers who are called on in that sequence (nowadays, in a small subset of meetings in left-wing organisations, male and female speakers go on separate lists and are called alternately). It is possible to make a procedural motion to close that list to new entries, or (rarely) to close debate at once. Such a motion can only be proposed by someone who has not yet spoken on the substance of the point under discussion (as opposed to points of order). Parliamentary procedure is different - in parliaments the list of speakers in debate is agreed beforehand in a meeting of the heads of parliamentary parties with the presidium (Ältestenrat))
That you want to speak on a point of order (Meldung zur Geschäftsordnung), or propose a prcedural motion (Antrag zur Geschäftsordnung) is often indicated by raising both hands rather than one. On a procedural motion the chair often offers the chance for one speaker to oppose the motion (Gegenrede). When nobody is against the motion sometimes says that they just formally oppose the notion (formale Gegenrede) to get that over with.
When officials/club officers/state premiers etc are elected in a meeting/parliament, after announcing the election results the chair always ask the winner(s) if they accept the election (“Nehmen Sie die Wahl an?”). The election result only becomes binding when the winner(s) positively state that they accept the election. Sometimes winners do not accept their win, e.g. out of pique for a bad result, or because they have stood to have dissenting voiced counted (Zählkandidat) but not with the expectation of being elected. If a winner does not accept the election the election must be done again.
The notion that a motion needs to be seconded is (in my limited experiance) unheard of in Germany.
I have run a lot of meetings of sorta middling formality. Board meetings of non-profits, labor unions, etc.
Your #1 is pretty common in US parliamentary procedure. Your 2 and 3 are not generally done. #4 is nearly universal in US procedure.
As one might expect, USA groups other than formal government entities don’t often stand too firmly on precise adherence to some book of procedure. German culture is probably more rule-following qua rule-following.
The general concepts of taking turns speaking, deference to the chair so long as they’re behaving reasonably and consistently, etc., are generally adhered to by at least the polite members of the meeting. And that’s usually seen as close enough to achieve the overall goal of individual fairness and arriving at a concensus about [whatever] that needs deciding.
Most meetings in the US (and, in my experience, also in Canada) are informally or formally run according to something called Robert’s Rules of Order. When I was asked to help run the meetings of a certain group, I bought a copy of the rules.
The first point is pretty much the same. If you want to raise a point, you generally just interrupt with the phrase “Point of order” and this takes precedence over whatever is on the floor at the time and is voted on at once. If an election takes place and you run, you had better be prepared to serve. I guess you can immediately resign, but you will piss off everyone else. And every motion requires a seconder; otherwise it is dropped immediately. (I don’t recall about points of order–I think not.) This is apparently to prevent frivolous motions. When I was on the school board there was one member making motions that did not get a second all the time. This rule helped a lot.
I’m mostly used to relatively small-scale and low stakes meetings where it’s possible to be fairly informal (when I was chair of a constituency political party, I did find an old copy of Citrine on Chairmanship, which was at one time the bible on such matters for some - but I never needed it). I’d say our experience mirrors the US mentioned above, and usually a good chairman will try and control the axe-grinders, windbags and people who like to get into procedural wrangles, so as to ensure that other people get a fair say. As an ordinary participant in residents’ meetings where I live, I have once or twice made a point of formally proposing “from the floor” that we simply “move to next business” when someone insists on flogging a dead horse (because AIUI that takes procedural priority and usually shuts them up).
Parliament has its own complex and sometimes abstruse set of rules (Erskine May). Generally speaking, backbench members who want to speak in a particular debate will make that known to the Speaker in advance, but I don’t know what criteria govern whether or not they’re called, or whether or when other members are allowed to intervene.
Under Robert’s Rules, a point of order is raised when it is believed a rule or procedure has been broken or not followed. It stops discussion on whatever is on the table and is addressed immediately. The point is resolved by the chair or the entire assembly.
A trivial example. Robert’s Rules requires a motion be made and seconded. (The point of a seconder is to ensure somebody besides the mover cares about the issue and so avoid someone monopolizing the meeting with motions.) after the motion is seconded, discussion begins. Let’s say X makes a motion and the group immediately starts to discuss it without it being seconded. Someone might “rise on a point of order,” in small meetings just speaking up, raising their hand, or however the group functions, to point out the motion hasn’t been seconded and so can’t be discussed. The chair would agree and call for a seconder. If there is no seconder, the motion is no longer up for discussion.
Yes. “Point of order” is strictly “I believe the chair is making a procedural error on the proper flow of the meeting.” Nothing else. And it pre-empts everything until resolved, since once the meeting is off the rails, nothing valid can happen until it is re-railed.
There are a series of about 15 prioritized "point of [whatever]"s. “Point of personal privilege”, etc., Most of which are nuances that would rarely occur in normal meeting flow.
Damn near nobody, whether chairing or attending, knows or cares about that level of pettifogging detail. But it sure matters if you’re dealing with something like a legislature full of supposedly professional debaters out for blood.
In the professional society I belong to, a motion from an official sub-committee of the body does not require a second (this is from years of observing someone raise a point of order about a second being needed and having this exception pointed out to them). Is this in Robert’s Rules or is it something the body has established?
Robert’s Rules holds that a motion from a committee does not require a second, unless there is only one person on the committee. If the committee is bringing the motion forward, it has already been moved and seconded, as it were, by virtue of the committee’s decision to bring it forward.
Note that one doe not have to agree with a motion to second it; seconding implies only that the seconder deems it worthy of discussion.
In addition to LSLGuy’s point, a point of order may be raised along the lines of, “member x is being a jerk, could the chair please rein them in.” That’s not the best wording, of course, but it is how one reminds the chair that proper procedure includes calling out inappropriate behaviour, including questioning the motives of members and disruptive body language.
Of course, Robert’s Rules only applies if the body has agreed to abide them, either formally, as in a constitution, or informally, by, say a vote or past practice. If the body does have a formal requirement for using RR, not following the Rules can void decisions or make the body liable in a suit. This doesn’t matter for your book club or fantasy football league, but for organizations that make more substantive decisions, not following the rules can create problems. As LSLGuy implies, this is not so much about following the arcana and more about bigger things, like quorum, voting procedures, etc.