1. Assume that one person gets to talk at a time. Give them a reasonable time limit to communicate.
2. Different sides take turns in a discussion.
3. Rules for the discussion are under debate, but changing the discussion rules is much more complicated for good reason. Try not to do this unnecessarily, but there are rules for that. There is an arbitrary level of "meta" here, where discussions-about-discussions-about-discussions can arise, and the rules are designed to work under these complex scenarios. But its rare to actually ever need them.
4. Ensure that a quorum has been reached before starting a meeting. If your group is composed of 10 people try to have at least 6 people show up, otherwise its a failed meeting and nothing can possibly get done.
5. After every meeting, send out meeting notes in an email. At the start of every meeting, discuss the previous meetings notes and vote to finalize those notes. Only the written record counts, not people's memories.
6. If an issue is settled / voted upon, do not revisit it until the next meeting (or later).
---------
Its not Roberts rules themselves that are important. Its:
1. The paradigm of having meta-rules, for how to discuss about the discussion. Any conflict will naturally become meta over time, and knowing how to resolve disputes despite a meta-nature is important. (Or at least, knowing that someone 100+ years ago thought of the problem, and there's a set of 100+ year old traditional rules that seem to avoid that problem).
2. Giving everyone a fair turn during the discussion: meeting quorum, alternating discussion points, time limits.
3. Giving forward progress: settling debates, finalizing discussions, etc. etc.
Every aspect of Roberts rules can be voted upon and changed by a group. IE: its the rules of the group that matter, not the rules as written by Robert 100+ years ago.