Bolding mine: This! ^

While I agree that motions should be as well thought-out and carefully proofread as possible, and while I do my best to put that into practice, experience has taught me that minor changes are sometimes needed. I prefer that such changes be handled consistently, under a well-defined and approved procedure. Asking the TalkBoard President to make all these decisions solo can cause bad feelings and is unfair to everyone.

I'm old enough to recall popular objection to the installation of seat belts in cars, and later objection to laws mandating their use. This formal procedure will increase the quality of TalkBoard's output. So I have called for another vote. Doing it now, when another vote is in progress, will avoid cluttering FT with a separate sitewide announcement of the vote.

Does anyone else besides me find the car seat argument a bit silly - ie, seriously, comparing a minor amendment process to something that impacts the public's safety really overstates TB's mandate/influence on FT. Geesh.

You are not alone

Here's a concept for a well-defined and approved procedure... If it's anything more than fixing a typo, the motion is withdrawn, corrected, and then proposed and seconded again.

TalkBoard has no formal procedure to withdraw a motion once voting begins. Normally the vote has to run to completion.

Then perhaps that should be what is implemented.

In essence, pulling out, prior to conception, or misconception.

And people didn't like the seat belt analogy! :D

I really hope that was not a condomnation of the TalkBoard...

There is no power of removal of TalkBoard President.

Fixing minor mistakes in public is better than doing it in private as at least the voting members of FT can see who made the error. However, getting it right first time, seems to be a better way to go.

This! ^

This! ^

But that wastes time. There's no reason to have to start all over again, especially if people have already voted, for a minor change. Why waste days when a simple fix will take care of the issue a lot quicker?

Incidentally, I see this as having an eraser on a pencil. You don't tear up a piece of paper and start writing your whole document again when you misspell a word. Same concept to me.

Well, yes and no.

One person's minor change is another person's deal breaker. One person's typo is another person's "this is why I voted the way I did, and wouldn't have otherwise." Who decides what is minor? How much can the "pencil erase" before it is no longer minor? And by the way, before "your time," if a secretary messed up when preparing an important document that was a multi-carbon form set, the entire thing would go into the dustbin, and (s)he would start all over.

I know we all think it should be so obvious. But there is a line somewhere, and that line will not be obvious.

Agreed 100%! ^ and to add that if this motion should pass (which I hope it does not), whatever changes are made, be they a typo or an actual substantive change, they must (n.b. must) be made public before (n.b. before) the change is implemented

And now back to discussing automobile seat belts