Voting Ended - Motion Failed: "Formalizing a Friendly Amendment process"
#31
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,585
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.
#32
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,441
Stubbornly insisting that the current process is broken and the new & improved is better is not justification enough to amend the TB Guidelines. Colour me unconvinced that lowering the bar to foster fast fixes is something that really needs to be done and seems more like a solution in search of a problem.
#33
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
I'm not saying the current process is broken, but I also saw how this friendly amendment can be used for the good to improve the current process.
And also, saying it arose after a problem was discovered, and saying nsx and kokonutz have spoken of numerous examples when it's been helpful, I think it's a solution to an actual problem.
And also, saying it arose after a problem was discovered, and saying nsx and kokonutz have spoken of numerous examples when it's been helpful, I think it's a solution to an actual problem.
#34
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
Me too. In fact, if the formal and open process incentivizes people on TB to be more careful before making and seconding motions, this would also be a very good thing.
#35
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
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.
Also, your last sentence is frankly preposterous.
There's nothing at all that's "preposterous" about expecting that when someone makes a motion to close A, B, and C, this is exactly what they mean: Exactly the list of the A, B, and C fora should be closed, specifically all of them and nothing more. If the person instead intends to close only A and B, or all of A, B, C, and D, then the correct list should appear in the motion. Similarly, if someone makes a motion (and it's seconded) which lists the set of fora to remain, then that list can only be taken to also correctly convey the intent of the people making and seconding the motion.
#36
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Either at the shooting range or anywhere good beer can be found...
Posts: 51,030
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.
No. There's nothing that says all votes must take 2 weeks. If the motion needs to be "tweaked," then everyone can vote it down within a few days, and a new motion can be made.
#37
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
With this TalkBoard, votes will take a full two weeks, trust me.
#38
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,618
I'm pretty confident in that belief. We have been trying to be more careful at least since 2013 and we have not reached 100% first pass success. I'm very patient but the time to act is overdue.
Also, we would slow down all motions in order to reduce but not eliminate the need for friendly amendments, which would remain unsanctioned by any formal process. That looks like a poor balance of costs vs. benefits to me.
Also, we would slow down all motions in order to reduce but not eliminate the need for friendly amendments, which would remain unsanctioned by any formal process. That looks like a poor balance of costs vs. benefits to me.
#39
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Either at the shooting range or anywhere good beer can be found...
Posts: 51,030
I'm pretty confident in that belief. We have been trying to be more careful at least since 2013 and we have not reached 100% first pass success. I'm very patient but the time to act is overdue.
Also, we would slow down all motions in order to reduce but not eliminate the need for friendly amendments, which would remain unsanctioned by any formal process. That looks like a poor balance of costs vs. benefits to me.
Also, we would slow down all motions in order to reduce but not eliminate the need for friendly amendments, which would remain unsanctioned by any formal process. That looks like a poor balance of costs vs. benefits to me.
#40
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
This is what I've been saying. It shouldn't be left open for whoever is TB president to unilaterally determine what changes are minor or even "technical" (with the latter category of changes presumably not even requiring the approval of anyone else, including the person who made the motion, the person who seconded it, and anyone who has already voted yes).
#41
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Then come up with a rule that would allow the author of the proposal to withdraw the motion after the voting starts, once the problem with the motion is identifed. Seems much easier to withdraw the motion if there's some minor issue with it, and then come back and introduce a new motion with the corrected language fixing whatever was wrong.
Agree. Why not just allow the TB member that introduced the motion to take it off the table and come back with a new motion with corrections? Wouldn't that work?
It shouldn't be left open for whoever is TB president to unilaterally determine what changes are minor or even "technical" (with the latter category of changes presumably not even requiring the approval of anyone else, including the person who made the motion, the person who seconded it, and anyone who has already voted yes).
#42
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,441
Then come up with a rule that would allow the author of the proposal to withdraw the motion after the voting starts, once the problem with the motion is identifed. Seems much easier to withdraw the motion if there's some minor issue with it, and then come back and introduce a new motion with the corrected language fixing whatever was wrong.
#43
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
Then come up with a rule that would allow the author of the proposal to withdraw the motion after the voting starts, once the problem with the motion is identifed. Seems much easier to withdraw the motion if there's some minor issue with it, and then come back and introduce a new motion with the corrected language fixing whatever was wrong.
Agree. Why not just allow the TB member that introduced the motion to take it off the table and come back with a new motion with corrections? Wouldn't that work?
Agree. Why not just allow the TB member that introduced the motion to take it off the table and come back with a new motion with corrections? Wouldn't that work?
#44
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
In terms of TB specific rules and procedures, a friendly amendment would permit those who have already voted to change their votes (normally not permitted for TB votes) and also, according to the current discussion, not change the timing of the vote.
Withdrawal of the motion would appear to be a unilateral action by the person who made the initial motion. The clock would then reset when the replacement motion is moved and seconded. Site-wide announcement would be required followed by the new feedback period before voting can begin.
At the moment, I don't have strong feelings about these two options (except to point ouut that I've already said that if those who have voted yes are allowed to veto the friendly amendment, then we need to specify that the privilege only applies to those who voted before the friendly amendment was mentioned, in order to prevent someone from quickly voting yes on a deficient motion just to be able to torpedo it by refusing to approve the friendly amendment), but if changes are left to the discretion of the TB president (for example, to determine unilaterally what changes are to be treated as minor), then the scope of such changes must be defined so as to be clearly limited.
#45
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,618
Would you please please try doing that? I'm stumped.
Although that's exactly where we are now. If you have a better idea I really want to see it. That's why we are having this discussion rather than rushing to a vote.
Although that's exactly where we are now. If you have a better idea I really want to see it. That's why we are having this discussion rather than rushing to a vote.