Originally Posted by
bdschobel
If we "screwed up the motion," then tell us what's wrong with it. I'm rather perplexed by these vague criticisms. Are you suggesting that there should not be a process for amending motions or that the process laid out in our motion is flawed? If it's flawed, then what's wrong with it?
Bruce
I'm not saying TB screwed up a specific motion but rather that this appears to be a "this is what we'll do if we screw up a motion" as opposed to what I said about voting it down and re-doing it. Example-a motion is made and seconded and during the voting period a member brings up in public discussion a valid point/issue which everyone overlooked and which is critical to the motion and based on this the current motion would cause more harm than good. At this point it's to late to table the motion so it should be voted down, the overlooked point should be re-written into a new motion and the new motion, along with any concerns/issues/questions it brings should be then publicly discussed to make sure nothing else is overlooked. Now mind you that this is a hypothetical but hypotheticals "sometimes have a habit of happening". or for a better explanation fo what I'm trying to say, see
kipper's post below
Originally Posted by
kipper
The problem is if TB screws up a motion, they may be in a hurry to amend it during voting, and any amendment may still have issues. This friendly amendment process doesn't allow for additional discussion time, where issues with the amendment might be discovered, and addressed.
I understand that some have accused TB of not doing anything, but passing flawed motions and hoping that the CD doesn't implement them for a while doesn't seem like that's a great idea either. Hence, my thoughts that flawed motions should be voted down, reworked, and then proposed as new motions, with a new voting period, etc.
^^^