I'm with the TalkBoard President. I cannot speak for him, but I get the feeling that there are certain members who delight in nitpicking everyone of our suggestions. And I also think nitpicking is the best word. The negativity, which often reaches a hysterical fever pitch, is at times overwhelming.

Personally, I don't mind the nitpicking.

I like nits. And how else can I make a meal of them unless I pick them!?

mmmmmm.... freshly picked nits.

Anyway.

So it seems like there are 3 options here:

Go with the language nsx proposes.

Go with the language nsx proposes plus a definition of 'minor' such as the one I provide above.

Go with the status quo which some seem to think means any changes will require a motion to be voted down and re-drafted for even the smallest change, but in practice actually means that minor changes are made at on an ad hoc basis in the private TB forum using whatever process the current TB chooses to apply (IME).

I can live with any of the three. But I would prefer to formalize this process.

What is it that you're seeking, and from whom?

I'm quite content with the idea of a "friendly amendment" process, and I take a fairly wide view of what's "immaterial" and that doesn't need to go through the entire proposal process multiple times. I am apt to vote "for" any such proposal.

I agree. And I agree with the concept that we're not solving world problems here. Due diligence and public comment are key, but I really think we're sweating an awful lot of details here.

Again, so making suggestions and/or voicing opinions is nitpicking? I've noticed a good amount of hostility towards those who voice a different opinion than what some on TalkBoard have in the past few months.

Sweating the details, especially before motions are actually proposed and seconded, can minimize the amount of "friendly amendments" that occur and can improve the end result.

You're putting words in people's mouths. I don't believe anyone equated the two. As I see it, there are people making suggestions and there are people nitpicking. The suggestions and opinions are pretty darn helpful. The nitpicking doesn't seem to add value, to me. I think there is a lot of grinding of teeth over the "exception" rather than the "rule" here. I do not believe anyone on TB is trying to overtake the world or rush to make adverse changes to FT. The aim is to take the membership's viewpoint into consideration while making things better than we found it in a fairly efficient manner.

And why is this such a concern? Pencils have erasers for a reason. Mistakes can be corrected. Why not strike a balance between efficiency and striving for perfection. Mulling over a proposal for all eternity doesn't guarantee that it will be "right" or won't need a revision or amendment somewhere down the road.

Mistakes can be corrected, but that too takes time. It's not an instant fix, even if you undo the mistake.

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." -- Charles Caleb Colton

I'm flattered! :D

Bruce

Perfectly stated. Thank you.True, of course. But the more fundamental point is that TalkBoard -- at most! -- merely recommends changes to the Community Director, who in turn is subordinate to some degree to Internet Brands, the owner of this site. If anybody higher up the food chain discerns a technical problem (or just wants to do something different, or even opposite what TalkBoard recommended), they can fix it as they see fit. We need not fear that TalkBoard (or some subset of its members) might abuse their power, because our power is extremely limited (even nonexistent) in the first place.

As one wise man already said, "This isn't the United Nations, folks."

Bruce

"Should the XXX Cat forum be re-named to...." where "Cat" is an obvious typo and should be "Car" should be fixed without any question but a poorly worded motion or a motion where it comes out that something should have been included or removed from the motion and as a result of that, other issues which might not have been thought of by TB have come to light and should be added or removed from the motion is not nit-picking.

Bolding mine: More so this than public comment as if due diligence is done, then the number of poorly worded motions get reduced

I strongly believe that phrases like "poorly worded motions" are themselves misleading. Every motion that I have seen during my 15 or so months on TalkBoard has been very carefully crafted, after intense public and private discussion. Nevertheless, a few have been less than perfect, with subtle flaws becoming apparent after the motion was made and announced, and more people started reading it. I suppose that the proposer might have discovered the flaws if he or she had studied it intensely enough for a long enough time. Maybe so; maybe not. But we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. (Thank you, Voltaire!) We move ahead when we believe that we are ready. If we find subtle flaws, then we (or the people higher up the food chain) can, should and really must fix them. That can happen many different ways. One such way is a practical friendly amendment process, which I totally support.

Bruce

That works for me & is what I think of when I think of minor/friendly amendment.

Cheers.

I agree, although I'll note that the definitions of "friendly" amendments, "minor" and whatnot are pretty well understood just from ordinary usage (or a dictionary, if necessary). The more things we choose to define, the more additional things we need to define. It quickly spirals out of control.

Bruce