If I may paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart: I cannot define minor, but I know it when I see it.

^^^^^. It would not be possible to give enough "thumbs up" to this statement.

I'm almost at the point of calling for all votes, including the timeframe of who voted when, to be 100% public. I have a strong suspicion that the TalkBoard member arguing most vehemently against the proposal in this thread is also the direct cause of why every vote TalkBoard has done this session has been dragged out almost to the absolute end of the voting period.

Like this?

And why not? I totally support this idea. I have no need of any confidentiality in my TalkBoard responsibilities.

Bruce

I support it too. There has been a move for greater transparency, perhaps this could be our next issue to tackle. I have nothing to hide and would be glad to share my voting history.

I don't think adding a date/timestamp on votes is necessary.

We implemented the public announcement of when a motion will pass/fail once a motion gathers (or doesn't) enough votes to pass, so FTers don't continue to argue for/against something if a decision has been made.

The list of who voted yes/no/abstain is made public when all votes are in or the 2 week voting period ends, whichever happens first.

Even if a vote goes the full two weeks, to paraphrase a comment either in this or another thread, this isn't Congress/the United Nations. The FT world will not come to an end.

Adding a date/timestamp to potentially embarrass a TB member(s) who votes too quickly or waits until the end doesn't really serve FT IMO.

Cheers.

I would not be embarrassed by full disclosure of my voting details. I don't understand why anyone would. Maybe I do vote too quickly on occasion, but that doesn't embarrass me. Likewise, anyone who votes slowly shouldn't feel embarrassed, unless he or she is delaying just to be obstinate.

Bruce

Why should people be embarrassed by when they vote? Unless of course there's a reason for their embarrassment in which case their constituents have a right to know of any negligence, especially if these people run again.

I wouldn't care either, but I don't see the point of amending the TB guidelines for a time stamp.

We already have the public announcement of when a motion will pass/not pass. We already have the list of who voted yes/no/abstain when all votes are done. I'm trying to think of what pressing benefit to FT is accomplished by knowing that someone voted at 2:53 am on (pick any date in the 2-week period).

Amending the guidelines to formalize a friendly amendment to a motion process I understand. Amending them to add a time stamp ranks up there with the seriously, this is what TB concerns itself w/ chain of thought IMO.

Cheers.

I agree that adding a time-stamp isn't especially valuable, and it wasn't my idea. But if others want it, I would go along, for sure. No objection.

Bruce

Agreed, I started a thread for it and hit AAM to have things moved over to it.

Totally agree with this. I am happy to provide how I voted and when I voted.

There is nothing stopping any TB member from posting when they vote and how they voted. And while they are at it, explaining that vote.

I wish more of us did precisely that more of the time.

And if there is a desire for greater transparency, how about my long-standing proposal of making the private TB forum open read-only for all posters!? ^

Anyway, that's neither here nor there for this proposal. Let's crap or get off the pot:

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 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 (ie one of the first 2 options).

I am not aware of any software capability to provide a time stamp for each vote. I believe it would require manual tracking, with the added work and inevitable inaccuracy that entails. It's a nice idea if it were feasible.

Interesting.

Bruce