I think some organizations follow the rule that if anyone objects to a friendly amendment being considered, then the longer process of withdrawing the motion and starting again must be followed. In this case, any member of TB could exercise veto power over a TB president declaring that something is minor/technical/just a typo/etc.

However, AFAIK when TB starts a vote, it must finish, so IIRC we really don't officially have the option now of withdrawing motions that have been seconded. Of course, if the motion never gets a second, then nothing happens and a competing motion could be made, seconded, and voted upon as if the first motion had never been suggested.

How about minor is a typo?

The Priority of Formalizing TB Process...
 

For any motion and any TalkBoard, going through a full 2-week voting period isn't necessarily a bad thing. Since 2012, TB has amended the guidelines to inform the public how a motion will end up if enough votes are secured beforehand. Why taking a 2 full weeks brothers you much?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-...isclosure.html

In terms of TB Topics Forum, we agree to disagree. Some of us always pay good attention to the "current events" in TBT Forum and provide feedback, whatever stage (say water-testing, proposal-drafting, motion-drafting or motion-voting) that matter at hand is, even when we feel like falling on deaf ears.

The FT reality is the majority of the currently registered 585,896 FTers don't even bother to pay any single visit to TBT Forum. Their full attention is to other parts of FT, no matter what step any TB proposal or motion is at. Does it make the dozens, if not hundreds, of those FTers who care enough to actively engage with TBT Forum any less passionate or effort unnecessary? I think not.

I don't think it's too much to ask of TB to implement a process to better the proposal/motion making in TBT Forum at this point, especially after what happened to creation of Premium Deals Forum and the very recent general car rental forum.

Yes, and there was also a case of "friendly technical amendment" in the motion stage. I don't know how the amendment was accomplished in the private TB Forum back in 2012, but I would think they should all be factored in when "formalizing" the formalizing process.

IMHO, what disappoints engaged FTers in TBT Forum is some hasty signs in the motion/s TBers introduce to the public. Please allow me to repeat myself:

That disappoints me too, but I don't know any way to prevent it from happening. And haste isn't the only problem that this proposal addresses.

Thanks. Simple typos don't need a formal process IMHO. If a TalkBoard member wanted to re-vote a proposal due to a typo the response would be disbelief.

Oversights are the typical situation needing friendly amendment. Somebody overlooks a gotcha. Like I almost overlooked the interaction with public notice of "shall not pass" announcements with vote changing in this proposal.

Suppose you overlook an aspect and you need a revision to address that aspect. Everyone agrees with the revision. Why delay everything? The process should not create pointless work for no-brainer changes. Neither should the process be so rigid as to regularly require executive overrides. That's where we are now.

Some typos can be major, for example "now" versus "not."

It should be easy to fix any minor typos which do not affect the meaning of the motion. However, IMO it's far better to have at least the person who drafted the motion proofread with care before the motion is moved and again by at least another person (the seconder) before it's seconded. I'm also concerned that some TB President could overstep his/her "powers" and declare something to be a minor typo when others don't necessarily share that view. It's also important that TB members who care be able to see exactly the motion that is being voted. IMO proceeding with the assumption that someone (the TB President or CD for example) will fix up the motion later is just wrong.

I have always stressed that need in the private forum. Oversights still happen, and they always will.

The TalkBoard guidelines give a lot of flexibility to the TB President to devise ad hoc solutions to problems. This proposal makes one aspect of that flexibility more specific. Under this proposal all the Yes voters must agree to call the change minor. If you'll pardon the play on words, that's not a minor point.

Then I'm confused. Is the implicit plan to treat all "minor" changes, including typos, under the proposed friendly amendment rules or are we talking about different rules/procedures for handling the categories of (i) typos, (ii) minor changes, and (iii) friendly amendments, including situations where important logical implications were omitted from the motion?

Yes, all 3 categories of changes will be under the friendly amendment process. I meant to say that if typos were the only kind of change allowed there would be no benefit to creating a formal process.

How about:

'A minor variation in an aspect or aspects of the details of a motion which does not alter the overall intent of the motion nor raise any new issues for consideration which would otherwise warrant the submission of a new motion'.

That would be my concern too.

This is not the United Nations folks. Use some common sense.

Can somebody please explain why only those who had voted 'yes' to a motion would be required to support any friendly amendment. Why wouldn't the views of any 'no' voters be taken into account - they too have voted on a motion which is now potentially going to be a different motion.

Because presumably the no voters have reason to dislike the amendment and have a vested interest in it changing. The yes voters liked it as is. The no voters are rewarded either way: either an amendment more to their liking that they can still vote no on or the same hope the amendment changes. The yes voters were the ones who supported the currently drafted one and have more skin in the game if it changes.

Where do you draw the line at "a minor variation"?

How about "if the motion has problems, issues, <your term here>, simply vote no to defeat the motion and re-do the motion correctly"