I'm also in favor of formalizing this but I want to mull over whether or not we should try to include definitions.

New draft, specifying that TB members determine what is minor and publicly identifying the approvers:

The TalkBoard Guidelines shall be revised as follows:

Add item 4.B.v.
v. Any member may propose a friendly amendment to a motion before or during voting. If the originator of a motion, the seconder, and all Yes voters as of the time the friendly amendment was proposed agree that the amendment is both minor and desirable, the TalkBoard President shall revise the motion and ensure that public notices of the motion are also updated.

Modify item 4.C.v.
v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final, except that a member voting No or Abstain may change that vote within 48 hours after a motion has been modified by friendly amendment. The TalkBoard President shall manually adjust the original vote count as necessary. If the possibility of changed votes exists due to a proposed friendly amendment, the TalkBoard President shall decide whether to defer public announcement of a "shall not pass" outcome until the end of the 48-hour period after the motion is modified.

Add item 4.D.v. and move current item 4.D.v. to become 4.D.vi.
v. When a friendly amendment is approved, the TalkBoard President shall instruct the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary to post the text of the change and a list of the approving TalkBoard members in the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote.

vi. Once voting is completed and the TalkBoard President has formally announced the results of the vote in the TalkBoard forum the Vice President/Secretary shall announce the full results of the roll call vote in
a. the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote
b. a new thread in the Town Hall forum.

A work of art! Seriously.

Bruce

Item 4.B.v. should read "Any TalkBoard member....." so as to not create confusion that any FT member could propose a friendly amendment during the voting period.

Hardly necessary as these are part of the TalkBoard guidelines...

Definitely agree.

Bruce

I'd like to see the verbiage that koko mentioned re: minor be incorporated in 4.B.v, about a friendly amendment not changing the intent of the motion etc. If you're going to change the guidelines to formalize a friendly amendment process, then being a bit more specific ala koko's verbiage (without having to do into detailed definitions trying to cover every item) would clarify/formalize what is meant by minor/friendly and I think would gather support by FTers. Otherwise you're back to the what does minor mean discussion.

Cheers.

The notion is that the maker, seconder and to-date 'yes' voters can decide by unanimous consent whether it is actually minor or not.

I think I am ok with that, as it's a pretty high bar.

That could be as little as 3 people.

I think having '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' added, plus the supposed high bar would probably quell most people's concerns/clarifies what is meant by minor (without going into specific detail trying to cover every scenario).

Again, if you're (generic TB you) are going to formalize the friendly amendment process, then formalizing what is meant by minor aka your line above makes the most sense to me/explains it.

Cheers.

Good catch. I'll fix that.

It could be just 2. But then a total of 6 people still need to agree that the revised version is a good idea. That will always remain the toughest barrier.

Note that only 2 TB members are ever needed to call for a vote on anything. Here we need 2 or more to revise a proposal. It's at least as tight as the standard for the original motion.

If I read this correctly, someone who initially voted "YES" cannot change their vote; only "NO" votes? WHY? What if a "YES" person does not like the change? They allowed it since it was the "intent" of the original motion, but they do not like the change.

Why can they not change their "YES" vote to "NO"?

Because a YES voter can object to the change and if he or she does then the change will not be made.

I think it would be much fairer if everyone who had voted was allowed to comment on the friendly amendment and allowed to change their vote

Why? People who voted no do not want the amendment to pass. They have no vested interest in the motion being changed.

Depending on how minor the minor amendment is the no voters may wish to change their minds. If they don't want the motion to pass, then as you say they have no vested interest, and therefore no reason to reject the friendly amendment.

I think it would be better to write the rule to allow everyone a say than to run into a situation later where somebody has a legitimate grievance about not being given a say.