Voting Ended - Motion Failed: "Formalizing a Friendly Amendment process"
Mar 16, 2015, 9:47 am
#136
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,598
So now we are talking about an amendment process rather than a friendly amendment process. 
Perhaps, and I'm just doing a little exterior box thinking here, the answer is to overhaul the entire way the TB considers motions.
As I pointed out in the private forum, TB operates by a modified form of Roberts Rules of Oder.
In RRoO, here is the basic approach to motions:
motion - second - dicussion - possible amendments - call the question - vote
Here's the basic approach under the TB Guidelines:
discussion - motion - second -vote
Here's what nsx's potential TB Guidelines amendments would create:
discussion - motion - second - voting - potential amendments - more voting/re-voting
While I'm ok (I think) with the nsx approach, perhaps we should take a moment and consider the RRoO approach.
Perhaps we get a motion and a second. Then a mandatory discussion period. Then an opportunity for amendments. THEN the question gets called and the TB votes.
This would allow for:
- greater poster input
- adjustments/amendments to motions through regular order
- plenty of time for everyone to know about and understand a motion before voting even commences
The current process was created by evolution as early talkboards passed along the approach to motions by 'verbal tradition,' and was reduced to paper (our guidelines) when the TalkBoard Guidelines were written.
But there's nothing sacrosanct about the current approach.
The downside of the RRoO approach (and the reason the TB rejected it when the TB Guidelines were drafted) is that it can get time consuming and a bit awkward doing that process online rather than in person (or by teleconference).
Anyway, just an OTB thought. This is a good tinker. But let's think about total overhaul before we tinker.
Perhaps, and I'm just doing a little exterior box thinking here, the answer is to overhaul the entire way the TB considers motions.
As I pointed out in the private forum, TB operates by a modified form of Roberts Rules of Oder.
In RRoO, here is the basic approach to motions:
motion - second - dicussion - possible amendments - call the question - vote
Here's the basic approach under the TB Guidelines:
discussion - motion - second -vote
Here's what nsx's potential TB Guidelines amendments would create:
discussion - motion - second - voting - potential amendments - more voting/re-voting
While I'm ok (I think) with the nsx approach, perhaps we should take a moment and consider the RRoO approach.
Perhaps we get a motion and a second. Then a mandatory discussion period. Then an opportunity for amendments. THEN the question gets called and the TB votes.
This would allow for:
- greater poster input
- adjustments/amendments to motions through regular order
- plenty of time for everyone to know about and understand a motion before voting even commences
The current process was created by evolution as early talkboards passed along the approach to motions by 'verbal tradition,' and was reduced to paper (our guidelines) when the TalkBoard Guidelines were written.
But there's nothing sacrosanct about the current approach.
The downside of the RRoO approach (and the reason the TB rejected it when the TB Guidelines were drafted) is that it can get time consuming and a bit awkward doing that process online rather than in person (or by teleconference).
Anyway, just an OTB thought. This is a good tinker. But let's think about total overhaul before we tinker.
Mar 16, 2015, 10:49 am
#137
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: 21,620
There is really no deficiency with the earlier form that allowed only yes voters plus the 2 originators to propose a friendly amendment. A No voter can always draft an amendment and ask one of those people to propose it. If they don't agree nothing happens. If they agree the friendly amendment process covers it.
Mar 16, 2015, 12:56 pm
#138
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: LHR- ish
Programs: MUCCI, BA Blue
Posts: 4,295
I think it looks good though I would like to see Koko's definition of minor incorporated
Mar 16, 2015, 1:43 pm
#139
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: 21,620
Add item 4.B.v.
v. Any TalkBoard member may propose a minor amendment to a motion more than 48 hours from the vote closing time and before enough yes or no votes have been achieved to either pass or not-pass the motion. If the originator of a motion, the seconder, and all Yes voters as of the time the amendment was proposed agree that the amendment is both minor and desirable, the TalkBoard President shall revise the motion and ensure that public notices of the motion are also updated. For the purpose of this paragraph, a minor amendment is a change which does not alter the overall intent of the motion nor raise any new issues for consideration which would otherwise warrant the submission of a new motion.
Modify item 4.C.v.
v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final, except that a member voting No or Abstain may change that vote within 48 hours after a motion has been modified by minor amendment. The TalkBoard President shall manually adjust the original vote count as necessary. If the possibility of changed votes exists due to a proposed minor amendment, the TalkBoard President shall decide whether to defer public announcement of a "shall not pass" outcome until the end of the 48-hour period after the motion is modified.
Add item 4.D.v. and move current item 4.D.v. to become 4.D.vi.
v. When a minor amendment is approved, the TalkBoard President shall instruct the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary to post the text of the change and a list of the approving TalkBoard members in the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote.
vi. Once voting is completed and the TalkBoard President has formally announced the results of the vote in the TalkBoard forum the Vice President/Secretary shall announce the full results of the roll call vote in
a. the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote
b. a new thread in the Town Hall forum.
v. Any TalkBoard member may propose a minor amendment to a motion more than 48 hours from the vote closing time and before enough yes or no votes have been achieved to either pass or not-pass the motion. If the originator of a motion, the seconder, and all Yes voters as of the time the amendment was proposed agree that the amendment is both minor and desirable, the TalkBoard President shall revise the motion and ensure that public notices of the motion are also updated. For the purpose of this paragraph, a minor amendment is a change which does not alter the overall intent of the motion nor raise any new issues for consideration which would otherwise warrant the submission of a new motion.
Modify item 4.C.v.
v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final, except that a member voting No or Abstain may change that vote within 48 hours after a motion has been modified by minor amendment. The TalkBoard President shall manually adjust the original vote count as necessary. If the possibility of changed votes exists due to a proposed minor amendment, the TalkBoard President shall decide whether to defer public announcement of a "shall not pass" outcome until the end of the 48-hour period after the motion is modified.
Add item 4.D.v. and move current item 4.D.v. to become 4.D.vi.
v. When a minor amendment is approved, the TalkBoard President shall instruct the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary to post the text of the change and a list of the approving TalkBoard members in the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote.
vi. Once voting is completed and the TalkBoard President has formally announced the results of the vote in the TalkBoard forum the Vice President/Secretary shall announce the full results of the roll call vote in
a. the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote
b. a new thread in the Town Hall forum.
Mar 16, 2015, 2:01 pm
#140
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Count me in.
Bruce
Bruce
Mar 17, 2015, 4:01 pm
#141
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: 21,620
Here's the final language
The TalkBoard Guidelines shall be revised as follows:
Add item 4.B.v.
v. Any TalkBoard member may propose a minor amendment to a motion more than 48 hours from the vote closing time and before enough yes or no votes have been cast to assure passage or failure of the motion. If the originator of a motion, the seconder, and all Yes voters as of the time the amendment was proposed agree that the amendment is both minor and desirable, the TalkBoard President shall revise the motion and ensure that public notices of the motion are also updated. For the purpose of this paragraph, a minor amendment is a change which does not alter the overall intent of the motion nor raise any new issues for consideration which would otherwise warrant the submission of a new motion.
Modify item 4.C.v.
v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final, except that a member voting No or Abstain may change that vote within 48 hours after a motion has been modified by minor amendment. The TalkBoard President shall manually adjust the original vote count as necessary. If the possibility of changed votes exists due to a proposed minor amendment, the TalkBoard President shall decide whether to defer public announcement of a "shall not pass" outcome until the end of the 48-hour period after the motion is modified.
Add item 4.D.v. and move current item 4.D.v. to become 4.D.vi.
v. When a minor amendment is approved, the TalkBoard President shall instruct the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary to post the text of the change and a list of the approving TalkBoard members in the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote.
vi. Once voting is completed and the TalkBoard President has formally announced the results of the vote in the TalkBoard forum the Vice President/Secretary shall announce the full results of the roll call vote in
a. the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote
b. a new thread in the Town Hall forum.
The TalkBoard Guidelines shall be revised as follows:
Add item 4.B.v.
v. Any TalkBoard member may propose a minor amendment to a motion more than 48 hours from the vote closing time and before enough yes or no votes have been cast to assure passage or failure of the motion. If the originator of a motion, the seconder, and all Yes voters as of the time the amendment was proposed agree that the amendment is both minor and desirable, the TalkBoard President shall revise the motion and ensure that public notices of the motion are also updated. For the purpose of this paragraph, a minor amendment is a change which does not alter the overall intent of the motion nor raise any new issues for consideration which would otherwise warrant the submission of a new motion.
Modify item 4.C.v.
v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final, except that a member voting No or Abstain may change that vote within 48 hours after a motion has been modified by minor amendment. The TalkBoard President shall manually adjust the original vote count as necessary. If the possibility of changed votes exists due to a proposed minor amendment, the TalkBoard President shall decide whether to defer public announcement of a "shall not pass" outcome until the end of the 48-hour period after the motion is modified.
Add item 4.D.v. and move current item 4.D.v. to become 4.D.vi.
v. When a minor amendment is approved, the TalkBoard President shall instruct the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary to post the text of the change and a list of the approving TalkBoard members in the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote.
vi. Once voting is completed and the TalkBoard President has formally announced the results of the vote in the TalkBoard forum the Vice President/Secretary shall announce the full results of the roll call vote in
a. the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote
b. a new thread in the Town Hall forum.
Last edited by nsx; Mar 17, 2015 at 4:07 pm
Mar 17, 2015, 4:28 pm
#142
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
I seconded the motion. So, 48 hours after a site-wide announcement appears, voting will begin.
Bruce
Bruce
Mar 20, 2015, 1:02 am
#143
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
And voting has now begun. It will end April 3 at 3 am Eastern time.
Bruce
Bruce
Mar 24, 2015, 8:47 am
#144
Join Date: Dec 2009
Programs: American, United, Southwest, US Airways, Nortwest, Alaska
Posts: 3
Follow Robert's Rule of Order
It seems to me that using Robert's Rules of Order would be more desirable. 1. Robert's Rules are universally available and widely used already, 2. the amount of work necessary to restate (and re-run) the motion and vote would be less complicated, 3. you wouldn't need to gain concurrence from everyone who has already begun voting.
Robert's allows for only the concurrence of the maker of the motion and the seconder to accept a "friendly amendment". In addition, the Chair still has the responsibility to determine that a friendly amendment does not substantially change the intent of the original motion.
As a Chair of several committees myself, using Robert's is easy an uncomplicated for entire voting body.
Robert's allows for only the concurrence of the maker of the motion and the seconder to accept a "friendly amendment". In addition, the Chair still has the responsibility to determine that a friendly amendment does not substantially change the intent of the original motion.
As a Chair of several committees myself, using Robert's is easy an uncomplicated for entire voting body.
Mar 24, 2015, 9:13 am
#145
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,598
It seems to me that using Robert's Rules of Order would be more desirable. 1. Robert's Rules are universally available and widely used already, 2. the amount of work necessary to restate (and re-run) the motion and vote would be less complicated, 3. you wouldn't need to gain concurrence from everyone who has already begun voting.
Robert's allows for only the concurrence of the maker of the motion and the seconder to accept a "friendly amendment". In addition, the Chair still has the responsibility to determine that a friendly amendment does not substantially change the intent of the original motion.
1) An amendment is a proposal to change a motion – a proposed action – being considered by a group.
(2) Sometimes people suggest amendments with the intention of making the original motion ineffective, or defeating its purpose. These are hostile amendments, offered with negative intent.
(3) Sometimes people suggest amendments that they sincerely believe will improve the original motion. These are friendly amendments, offered with positive intent.
(4) An unfortunate custom has arisen whereby when a person suggests a “friendly amendment,” the presider often turns to the maker of the motion to ask him if he would accept the amendment. If he agrees, the presider sometimes also asks the seconder if she would accept the amendment.
(5) This is wrong!
(6) Once a motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair, it belongs to the group as a whole, not to the individual who first proposed it. It is the group as a whole that must accept or reject any proposed amendment, whatever the intent of the proposer. The maker of the motion, and the seconder, have the same rights as the other members of the group – no more and no less.
(7) When someone offers a friendly amendment, we suggest that the presider say, “A friendly amendment is handled just like any other amendment. Is there a second?” This language doesn’t make people feel stupid, but sets the group in the right procedural path.
(8) If the presider turns to the original maker of the motion to ask if he approves of the proposed change, any member can say “point of order.” This stops the action. The member can then explain the error.
http://www.jurassicparliament.com/_b...dly_amendment/
(2) Sometimes people suggest amendments with the intention of making the original motion ineffective, or defeating its purpose. These are hostile amendments, offered with negative intent.
(3) Sometimes people suggest amendments that they sincerely believe will improve the original motion. These are friendly amendments, offered with positive intent.
(4) An unfortunate custom has arisen whereby when a person suggests a “friendly amendment,” the presider often turns to the maker of the motion to ask him if he would accept the amendment. If he agrees, the presider sometimes also asks the seconder if she would accept the amendment.
(5) This is wrong!
(6) Once a motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair, it belongs to the group as a whole, not to the individual who first proposed it. It is the group as a whole that must accept or reject any proposed amendment, whatever the intent of the proposer. The maker of the motion, and the seconder, have the same rights as the other members of the group – no more and no less.
(7) When someone offers a friendly amendment, we suggest that the presider say, “A friendly amendment is handled just like any other amendment. Is there a second?” This language doesn’t make people feel stupid, but sets the group in the right procedural path.
(8) If the presider turns to the original maker of the motion to ask if he approves of the proposed change, any member can say “point of order.” This stops the action. The member can then explain the error.
http://www.jurassicparliament.com/_b...dly_amendment/
Mar 27, 2015, 10:57 am
#146
Moderator: Hilton Honors forums
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Marietta, Georgia, United States
Posts: 24,997
I have not voted yet in case there was more feedback pertaining to this change in policy for TalkBoard; and the vote is scheduled to end on April 3, 2015.
Are there any other thoughts before I vote?
Are there any other thoughts before I vote?
Mar 27, 2015, 12:04 pm
#147
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,598
I voted for this motion. I don't love it. But it's good enough.
Mar 27, 2015, 2:09 pm
#148
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Mar 27, 2015, 2:16 pm
#149
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Voltaire
We've been round and round on this. You can edit forever, or you can say, "This looks good to me," and make the motion. If you are asking whether it could be even better, well, anything that anyone does could be better if given more time and effort. That's a given.
Bruce
We've been round and round on this. You can edit forever, or you can say, "This looks good to me," and make the motion. If you are asking whether it could be even better, well, anything that anyone does could be better if given more time and effort. That's a given.
Bruce
Mar 27, 2015, 6:40 pm
#150
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
And I still see this as "we screwed up the motion so let's find an easy way out to safe face" vs simply voting the motion down, taking the good parts of the motion along with member feedback as applicable and getting it right with a new and better motion