MSPeconomist

Changing a motion so that it no longer calls for the elimination of a forum is hardly a "tweak" and it certainly isn't a typo. In fact, actually looking at a forum before calling for its elimination in a formal motion would seem to be a very reasonable first step. If a forum is listed for elimination in some motion that has been put forth in the TB forum, to me that would be seem to be evidence of "intent" on the part of the people who are proposing and seconding the motion.

mia

Please educate me. How is the need for revisions typically discovered? Is it usually the result of the public discussion which occurs after the formal motion is published in a Comments Welcome/Voting Underway thread?

nsx

Most of the time, yes. Due to human nature* the discussion and interest tends to peak after a vote starts rather than before. Then people who were paying no attention before suddenly discover flaws in the motion. This proposal allows those flaws to be repaired without incurring further delay and while minimizing everyone's extra effort.

*I'm just reporting on my experience in several years on TalkBoard, not defending this aspect of human behavior.

MSPeconomist

IME both in the discussion in the private TB forum and also when the motion is "published" in the public TBT forum.

mia

Perhaps TalkBoard needs a three step public process:

• General discussion of an idea.
• Publish preliminary motion with fixed length public comment period.
• Publish final motion with public comment while voting is in progress.

Talkboard would need to weigh the time and complexity of adding the middle step against the reality that motions lead to recommendations, not policies, and that the Community Directory is able to incorporate friendly amendments at the implementation stage.

CMK10

It's always easy for the people who take little part in the discussion or suggestion process to play Monday Morning Quarterback. I made what I consider my best effort, and then I was happy to take suggestions afterwards and want to keep that door open in the future. I see nothing wrong with what I did.

Also, your last sentence is frankly preposterous.

SkiAdcock

Agree. When I think minor for friendly amendments, I'm really thinking of things that are minor & aren't really changing the motion overall/too much.

I'd disagree that's it's solely human nature. It's that a lot of folk aren't aware of TB &/or discussions & only find out about motions after they're done/voting is underway/public announcement is made. They're not suddenly discovering flaws, which would imply they ignored them until that point. If a motion has flaws, then TB either votes it in as is & lives with it or votes it down & starts again (both of which have been done in the past).

Agree.

Agree with the above & to a certain degree TB has been moving more towards that, with some motions being presented in the public discussion thread & asking for input before going to formal motion stage. That, however, has not been mandated & perhaps it should. Obviously the fixed length on the preliminary motion shouldn't be as long as the voting timeframe.

Cheers.

nsx

I believe that people still wouldn't focus fully on the matter until the last step. Again, human nature.

exilencfc

I think that the basic principle is sound and I like the idea of this motion. But I think you'd have to be very careful as to what qualified as a minor amendment - for instance a minor change in the proposed new name for the Russian airlines forum could be very contentious and I certainly don't consider changing which forums should be created/closed to be a minor thing.

MSPeconomist

Some TB members follow the general procedure of placing a draft motion in both the private and public fora. I think this is good practice, although it might not always be needed very simple and straightforward motions. If we do decide to mandate publication of the preliminary motion (presumably after it has received a second), then maybe the public comment period should occur at that time rather than after the final motion has been proposed and seconded.

However, I share the concern of nsx that people will procrastinate and not think seriously about the issue or provide comments until the final motion has appeared.

kokonutz

This.

No one gives much of a crap about the minutia of TB conversations until the money is real, the chips are on the table and the cards are dealt.

At that point, folks come in and we get crowd-sourced feedback that is not ever going to happen until the cards are dealt.

No additional steps or requirements will ever change that fact.

In the meantime the TB has endeavored, in response to popular opinion, to create a process that allows for maximum transparency and poster input while the cards are on the table. But that also makes it a lengthy and cumbersome process to kill a motion that is on the table and replace it with a slightly modified/improved one. Under current rules this could take over a month or so, depending on how it was done.

That all said, I first ran for TB way back in the day because I was disgusted by the lack of transparency and lack of consistency in TB actions (I can't count how many times I was accused of seeing 'black helicopters' before I ran for TB...only to find a freaking hanger full of them when I was elected to TB then immediately suspended from FT then finally reinstated and able to see the threads in the private TB forum ). And I hope that the legacy of my terms of service on the TB will have been to help clarify and standardize the TB process. So I am sensitive to the notion that this friendly amendment process could be used to circumvent the standardized and as-transparent-as-possible process that I worked so hard to help implement.

But my feeling is that it's fine to give the TB this little bit of wiggle room to fix minor/technical issues with motions without going through the entire formal motion process for a second time on the same issue, just because one of the 'airlines of Estonia' was left out of the list for a new proposed 'airlines of Estonia' forum, for example.

And, frankly, I'd MUCH rather have this 'friendly amendment' process be a FORMAL process than have it be something the TB just sort of does behind closed doors by consensus or whatever.

As for the standard for a friendly amendment, I think getting the maker, seconder and ALL of the to-date 'yes' voters to agree to the friendly amendment is a high enough bar to ensure no shenanigans are played.

So that's my thinking on the matter, for what it's worth: we've made the TB process difficult and exacting. On purpose. So it's important to give the process a little bit of wiggle room.

JMHO, and YMMV!

kokonutz

Sorry, one more thought:

Every, every EVERY thing that the TB recommends is just that: a RECOMMENDATION to the Community Director.

She does an excellent job of smartening up some of our dumber recommendations. ^

All Hail Carol!

tcook052

Very much agree. While I appreciate the intent of the proposal making it easier to correct errors may cause more occur as the need to be very thorough in wordsmithing a motion is removed when you can just make revisions after the fact.

CMK10

So we should wait 16 days for the motion to be voted down then go back to the beginning when instead we could fix it and go through only one vote?

"that's how it's always been done" is not a justification for stubbornness.

nsx

- It's not stubbornness; it's idealism. I empathize but after plenty of experience I bow to reality.

- The way it's always been done is ad hoc by the TalkBoard President. This proposal will standardize what already occurs and will continue to occur in any case.