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

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

I'm still waiting for a description of the problem.

Bruce

I doubt you'll get one. It's a pretty simple concept and some people seem to have a agenda.

Like I said earlier, this isn't the United Nations. If there is this much angst, then I question the sincerity of the objectors.

People are human. People make mistakes, or miss a point. Big deal. Allow them to correct this easily. They are volunteers and the amount of patience they have, and time I see them putting on on something that truly has minimal impact on our lives is crazy.

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.

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

^^^

If we get a good suggestion during the public-comment period, this allows us to incorporate it immediately. It does not imply that anybody "screwed up" anything. Jeez.

Bruce

I voted "no" based on feedback from goalie and kipper and others who said similar things. As much as I want to have confidence that good common sense would prevail regarding "friendly amendments", I think that permitting them is a slippery slope and could leave too much open to interpretation/opinion.

I feel more comfortable killing an imperfect motion and starting over rather than trying to amend one on the fly.

Thank you ^ :)

Thank you! ^

I similarly agree and voted “no” as well — and that is no April Fool’s Day joke.

It is not like members of the TalkBoard are inundated and vote on several issues every single day; so taking the time to vote down a flawed motion to craft a better one serves the best interests of FlyerTalk members, in my opinion.

Thank you! ^

Another "no" vote here. I support taking the time to go through and make sure a motion is as accurate as possible before voting.

Apologies for the delay in doing so; I've been away for Navy Reserve duties and then recovering with being away from my life for 2 weeks.

Thank you ^ :)

Thank you (redux) ^ :)

Which has been done in the past on TB btw. Not often, but it's happened.

BTW - no idea if this will pass or not, but I think common sense should dictate that typos do not need motions voted down nor friendly amendments. ;)

Cheers.