I was sitting with my SD 15 delegation on the left side (PetronDE I think SD 17 was on the right, right?) and I agree that the parliamentary procedure wasn't by the book. On the Rule 43 final vote, I felt that the room was evenly divided in a voice vote (seemed that was from my seat; that's why I wondered about the right side) and that there should have been a standing vote or even a roll call. So what about the inconvenience, the rule was really important and we had already debated the rule for nearly an hour: it deserved a definitive, clear vote. Our SREC committeeman tried to ask for one right after Shapiro said the nays had it, but he was never recognized (and those that were subsequently recognized were ruled out of order b/c Shapiro had conveniently moved on to the Platform debate). I felt that this was unfair. I think maybe the leadership didn't want even the Rule 43 compromise to pass (even though it was supported by many delegations, addressed the RINO problem with accountability by adding the monetary incentive, and took out the legally questionable parts of the proposed rule going into the convention).
On a lighter note, I enjoyed meeting MAF and LurkerNoMore! -- I'm sorry I didn't make it to the dinner: I was a little overwhelmed with all the activity in my SD caucus, which finished too late for me to get the necessary info.
Debate was over an hour, and some of the no votes from SD17 occurred because people were confused and were not going to vote "yea" on something that confusing. The SREC and several of the more experienced delegates did there best of educate those that were confused, but I estimate at least 20% of the SD17 no votes were because of that reason alone.
Regarding the Roberts Rules, like I posted before, I will let the experts on RRO fight it out (I am NOT one of them).