Originally Posted by
kipper
I understand the thought, but I would prefer that once anyone has voted on a motion, it can no longer be changed.
How you've proposed it, there is no definition of what is "minor." It seems like a backdoor attempt to be able to railroad through various things without garnering much discussion.
A motion creating a new forum, when there is obviously demand, and no one has posted against it could be proposed, and then, 48 hours after the sitewide announcements are posted, someone could propose a "minor" amendment changing to include closing a different forum, and 6 people could vote yes before the sitewide announcements are updated, knowing that people would be upset that a forum was being closed.
Define "minor" to start, and incorporate that language into the guidelines.
Lol, nsx predicted this question would come up when I insisted that we keep the word 'minor' in there!
Here is my reasoning from the private TB forum:
Originally Posted by
kokonutz
Presumably friendly amendments would not be subject to all of the waiting period, public notice etc. requirements of regular motions?
That being the case, are we concerned that this process would circumvent those requirements and there could be big changes to FT recommended without much (or, really ANY) notice to the community at large?
After all, under this proposal we could have a vote to recommend the creation of a Harry's Happy Airline Forum, then by friendly amendment change it without notice or waiting period to a recommendation to create a Billy's Boring Airline Forum, then pass that motion 3 minutes later.
If this is a concern, then I think it might be important to put 'minor' back in. Or, better, 'minor/technical.'
So minor means, at a minimum, not substantively changing the intent of the proposal but rather fixing some technical issue around it.
To me, anyway.