I do agree with some of your comments.  However, I do think if the rules of order set in place are followed by everyone, then we can have constructive and decisive meetings.  But that's the problem (in my opinion) not everyone is following these rules.  There has to by some organization and a system in place if everyone is going to be heard. I had a limited amount of time last night I was able to attend and even though I was there for an hour and a half, we barely made it through volunteer group announcements.  That is a problem I feel.  So I think the system needs so tweaking for sure, but I cannot agree that it should be abandoned completely.

It might be wise to try to hash out a number of points in smaller working groups before the actual meeting to then be presented as a proposal. Much of this could be done online to wider feedback and the issue of people not being able to talk all at the same time. There could also be some guide lines formed on what the purpose of the group is and what is suppose to be discussed during a particular GA. I don't know why anyone thought it was a good idea to try to bring up local issues or kind of issues they did.

OWS has this problem to a degree but with national issues in that a lot of people are simply voicing their opinions  and proposed solutions. These needs to happen but people need also find common themes and common solutions with broad appeal then focus them. The theme is already presented by OWS with specific grievances and boiled down in the dedication at the top of the page. There are also ideas of having demands outside this in the way of economics and accountability for the failures that occurred. Pursuing this could limit appeal away from those who dislike regulation of business when common ground could otherwise be achieved. The same kind of idea applies to any other idea people try to bring to this, or I argue should.