CMK10

You say that but some people take Roberts Rule of Order really seriously. I saw a lot of anger over a typo ("four" vs. "five") in a previous motion which did hold up voting.

nsx

As do I. However experience has taught us that (a) not every TalkBoard member will be sufficiently patient and (b) even after due diligence problems can be discovered after voting starts. In those cases this proposal provides a reasonable framework to proceed without starting over.

I voted yes.

bdschobel

Not just problems. Sometimes improvements become apparent and could be easily incorporated.

Bruce

lin821

As a non-native speaker, I might have misunderstood the meaning of typo. I can understand "fur" being a typo of "four." I didn't know "five" could be a typo of "four." If I mean three when I type two, I say I miscount or do the math wrong. I don't say I have a typo. If I have a fat finger and type "tjank you" instead of "thank you", I know I have a typo.

Do I understand the meaning of typo correctly?

ETA:
FWIW, if the previous motion was this rental car thread, I don't think the hold up was due to the "non-typo" you referred to. YMMV.

bdschobel

OK, it's not technically a "typo," but it's an inconsequential failure to make a conforming change -- and we corrected it essentially without objection. Revoting the motion would have been an absurd waste of everybody's time, and we didn't run for TalkBoard to do that.

Bruce

nsx

That assertion is debatable.

bdschobel

Bruce

kipper

Thank you!
I wouldn't take five as a typo for four. I'd think one meant to close an extra forum/subforum.
This! ^
It could be a huge change to close 4 forums instead of 5, or 5 instead of 4.

bdschobel

Yes, it could. But in the actual situation that occurred just a couple of weeks ago, the number of forums recommended to be closed changed during drafting from five to four -- and that was noted and the forum names listed explicitly -- but one provision of the motion inadvertently retained the previous "five." Clearly -- and I do mean clearly -- it was intended to be "four," and we agreed to change it to four. Only one member raised a question about that, but no formal objection was raised to making this obvious conforming change. There was absolutely no possibility of misunderstanding. We should avoid being unnecessarily pedantic, especially when that works to our own detriment.

Bruce

nsx

Nonsense, Bruce. By treating every minor error as fatal, forcing a complete reset, we show our dedication to principle. That uncompromising approach ensures that everyone will realize that TalkBoard is deadly serious business.

tcook052

is right.

kokonutz

Yes, once or twice. But FAR more often than that what happens is that a motion is edited/improved on an ad hoc basis after it is made and seconded. Which leads to a situation of LESS rather than MORE public notice and transparency as the process is, in practice, left to the TB President.

Depends on how one defines 'typos' as we have seen in this thread.

I have no idea if this will pass or not, either. But as noted above, I prefer to have a formalized process for such things rather than leaving them to the whim of the TB President.

bdschobel

And, as the TB president, I seconded nsx's superb motion to formalize the process. I'm actually stunned that people are voting against it -- and on such flimsy grounds. (Essentially, "This amendment process might be abused, so let's not have one." Of course, if you believe that TalkBoard is full of scoundrels, then you have a lot more than that to worry about.)

Bruce

Canarsie

That is not the reason why I voted against this motion.

Right or wrong, I tend to look at things as whether or not a change is necessary; and after reading all of the feedback, I thought to myself, “so what is the big deal of going through a motion from the start and get it right again versus a ‘friendly amendment’ procedure?”

Could a “friendly amendment” procedure ultimately streamline the process of going through the motions — pun intended? Perhaps — but is it significant enough to warrant a formality? The answer is no, in my opinion — simply because members of the TalkBoard are not considering such a spate of motions on a constant and consistent enough basis that such a formality is necessary.

If a motion is presented with a true typographical error, as demonstrated by lin821......I really do not believe that any of the membership of FlyerTalk would be in an uproar if that typographical error is corrected without having to start the process of going through a motion and a vote all over again.

Ironically — whether I am correct or incorrect, I do not know, as I cannot predict the future — I believe that the procedure of a “friendly amendment” has the potential to further complicate the process instead of streamlining it...

...but I did not vote against it because I believe the process could be abused. After thinking about it, the conclusion for me is that I simply believe that it is not necessary. I trust fellow members of TalkBoard — otherwise, I would not have considered being a member of it in the first place.

nsx

Quoted for truth.

You should use that as your signature! @:-)