Bolding mine: I'm more of an OF than a young buck ;) but those are the reasons that I am also (strongly) leaning towards a no vote

Since I don't maintain the list I can't do it, but can PM the originator of the list to see if they're willing to do the updating. It was probably current as of the time it was created. My point was to get (some) FTers to realize that LCC are not just limited to the few that the US & UK/Europe are familiar with (hence why we wouldn't just list 1-2 in the subtitle if by chance this passes).

Cheers.

Wait koko, I thought you were the one that said in order to move forward we need to do motions :p :D. Wasn't that your mantra on a few things you wanted? ;)

But seriously - you had the opportunity to provide input (including the crowd source suggestion ;)) in the threads yet until your post above I didn't see much input from you on either this or Information desk (which jackal seconded, not me). We did get input by TB members & FTers on these two topics based on threads raised in this forum, some spun off from other threads.

Anyway, I've not yet voted but I'm leaning towards yes because the regional aspect makes more sense to me.

Right now, from reviewing this thread, the support is about even w/ the negative by FTers. I just did a quick count. I counted those who posted for/against 4 budget forums, maybes, or what about single forum one time, even if the posters posted multiple times.

Cheers.

At the risk of repetition was there any discussion on TB about renaming exisiting forums to fit the LCC dynamic rather than creating 4 brand new forums? If not, why not?

A what? Sorry, I couldn't understand your thick Boston accent. I can't figure out what a "faht" is. :p

AFAIK, the first time this motion was posted in THIS Forum was after it has been made and seconded.

I submit that if it HAD been, someone would have caught the typo. And the suggestion of making the other regional forums include LCCs would have been brought up and discussed by SOMEone.

I used to think it took a motion and second to get people to pay attention. I still do think it takes a draft motion to get people to pay attention.

This motion was kicked around in the private TB forum, but from what i can find not here. Please correct me if I am wrong.

For informational purposes to all members
 

TalkBoard is entitled to amend motions (and wording of a motion) and adopt amended motions as much as any other organisational leadership group. Robert's Rules of Order is one of the more common set of rules used for these kinds of deliberations. In the case of Robert's, one definition is:

"For Fair and Orderly Meetings & Conventions

Provides common rules and procedures for deliberation and debate in order to place the whole membership on the same footing and speaking the same language. The conduct of ALL business is controlled by the general will of the whole membership - the right of the deliberate majority to decide. Complementary is the right of at least a strong minority to require the majority to be deliberate - to act according to its considered judgment AFTER a full and fair "working through" of the issues involved. Robert's Rules provides for constructive and democratic meetings, to help, not hinder, the business of the assembly. Under no circumstances should "undue strictness" be allowed to intimidate members or limit full participation.

The fundamental right of deliberative assemblies require all questions to be thoroughly discussed before taking action."

TalkBoard as a deliberative assembly will generally follow these or similar procedures. I'm sure they can elucidate if it is necessary. An abbreviated chart of motions can be seen here.

(I'd suggest koko is correct about trialing motions - but that's not my business, and there are ways of amending and modifying - my only pint here is to be informative.)

Re: the typo. The motion was discussed over a period of time in the private forum & no one (including you and me) caught the typo there, so it was copied over to the public thread. So that one is on us, TB members.

FWIW - since it literally was such a typo type thing, it could have just been corrected w/o amendment part IMO when someone did catch it. It wasn't changing the motion.

The 4 forums subject was definitely discussed in the private forum, and came out of discussions in the public forum (link in post #11). The topic re: the LCCs being in budget travel or located in the "Other" regional forums was discussed by many someones in that thread (see link in post #11), so it's not out of the blue. However, the idea of 4 new forums (vs. 1) isn't in that particular thread & came about through discussion in the private forum, although part of that discussion/motion was based on what was discussed in the other thread linked to in post #11 & really came more about because of the 'others'.

As jackal mentioned in post #48,

"I think that was an error/oversight on the part of all of us rather than anything intentional. (my add: regarding not listing the draft motion in the public forum).

We're in the midst of discussing (both publicly and among ourselves) several different issues, and IIRC, this was something that was incorporated into a larger motion that was going to be posted for public comment but then one or two TB members preferred to have this voted on separately, and so it probably got split off and moved/seconded before anyone really thought about it. (my add: /realized the 4 idea wasn't listed in the public forum already).

(bolding mine) I think this is much more the exception than the rule. It's certainly not our desire to ignore public comment on any issue before going forward with it."

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming, which is asking for input from FTers re: the motion. Voting is open for 10 more days or when TB members vote, whichever comes first.

Cheers.

Robert's Rules of Order require a majority to approve any amendment - was that reached here?

Motions in the past that have contained errors had to be voted down, and then re-voted upon.

TB can set up any rules it wants - but for credibility sake, they might want to be consistent about it.

Everyone who had already voted Yes or seconded the motions OK'ed the changes. People who had not yet voted or seconded didn't have any skin in the game yet. Simple and fair, no?

(I doubt there would ever be a case where a No voter would have changed his or her vote to Yes based on the friendly amendment, but if so that would need to be addressed.)

So no.

The error was a typo that didn't get caught in the private forum & thus got transferred to the public forum when the motion was posted. IMO it didn't need an amendment but should have just been corrected when it was brought to our attention. Sometimes common sense should prevail. Something that has a fundamental error would be a different matter, but this wasn't that.

Now hopefully we can go back to FTers discussing the pros/cons & providing their input on the actual motion.

Cheers.

I apologize for my failure to realize that this proposal was not fully aired in TalkBoard Topics (TBT). Its genesis was here, and TalkBoard members read all discussion in TBT, but we didn't complete the circle before starting to vote. Things are a bit hectic on the TalkBoard right now, and that's mostly a good thing. The end of the TalkBoard term is coming up and we want to finish what we've started. (This incentive to get off our posteriors is the primary reason I advocated the term limits which will kick me off the TalkBoard next month!)

Back on topic, as to the merits of the proposal itself:

It's clear that we need at least one new forum for RyanAir and EasyJet. They are much larger than some other airlines which already have forums here. RyanAir has over 300 aircraft, for goodness sake. A lot of people fly these airlines and they need information on how to navigate their idiosyncratic and often customer-unfriendly rules.

I was conflicted on the best way to handle non-US, non-European budget carriers. SkiAdcock convinced me, using the same reasons she has posted here, that consistent organization is more important than assuring heavy traffic in these forums.

Geography is a consistent and useful way to categorize what I like to call fee-happy airlines. Why? Because potential customers already have a geographic area in mind, and they will benefit from exposure to the policies of more than one of these airlines in their region. Conversely, there is very little useful information a RyanAir customer can pick up from a thread about Spirit Airlines. Mixing geographic regions might boost thread count in a forum, but it would actually diminish value to readers.

Similarly, mixing fee-happy airlines with traditionally run airlines diminishes value even though it increases the post count per forum. Value is improved by separating these two very different subjects.

That's my case in a nutshell: Separation of forum consistent with reader needs, post counts be damned.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...lue-forum.html

All one can ask is for consistency.

How do you know that?

Quite frankly this pedantic nonsense is taking away from the discussion of the yes/no question. Maybe that's the intent.