Formalizing a Minor Amendment Process (retry)
 

TalkBoard continues to need to deal with minor amendments despite members' best efforts. Here's a slightly modified version of the proposal which failed 5-3 last time. If there's a way to improve this version I'd like to know that quickly so we can potentially conduct the vote at the same time as the other vote which is starting.


The TalkBoard Guidelines shall be revised as follows:

Add item 4.B.v.
v. Any TalkBoard member may propose a minor amendment to a motion by posting the text in the private TalkBoard forum and in the public TalkBoard Topics forum more than 48 hours from the vote closing time and before enough yes or no votes have been cast to assure passage or failure of the motion. If the originator of a motion, the seconder, and all Yes voters as of the time the 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. For the purpose of this paragraph, a minor amendment is a change 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.

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 minor amendment. The TalkBoard President shall manually adjust the original vote count as necessary. If the possibility of changed votes exists due to a proposed minor 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 minor 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.

Revision to clarify how and when amendments will be presented and approved:

The TalkBoard Guidelines shall be revised as follows:

Add item 4.B.v.
v. Any TalkBoard member may propose a minor amendment to a motion by posting the text in the voting thread in the private TalkBoard forum and in the public TalkBoard Topics forum more than 48 hours from the vote closing time and before enough yes or no votes have been cast to assure passage or failure of the motion. If the originator of a motion, the seconder, and all Yes voters as of the time the amendment was proposed post in the voting thread their agreement that the amendment is both minor and desirable, and if this occurs at least 48 hours from the vote closing time, the TalkBoard President shall revise the motion and ensure that public notices of the motion are also updated. For the purpose of this paragraph, a minor amendment is a change 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.

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 minor amendment. The TalkBoard President shall manually adjust the original vote count as necessary. If the possibility of changed votes exists due to a proposed minor amendment, the TalkBoard President shall decide whether to defer public announcement of a "shall not pass" outcome.

Add item 4.D.v. and move current item 4.D.v. to become 4.D.vi.
v. When a minor 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.

Why don't the TB supporters of this call it what it is; i.e., a "technical amendment" process. "Formalizing a Friendly Amendment Process" sounds like a kumbaya procedure amongst the TB, which is not accurate. The amendments are neither friendly nor hostile. They should only be technical (to clarify a drafting error or correct an impracticality in execution, etc.).

The term "friendly amendment" is used by some groups that do real live meetings. It applies to a proposal to amend a motion that has been moved and seconded, where typically the mover and seconder must approve the amendment. Presumably something that doesn't constitute a modification preserving the intent of the motion would be considered to be out of order. Usually this must be done during the discussion of the motion and before the question has been called to force a vote on the original motion.

You're right. I mistitled the thread. The motion refers only to "minor amendment".

So now we have a second attempt to do something which afaic is not needed as if TB members did their job properly and carefully (n.b. properly and carefully) a good/properly worded motion would not need a "friendly amendment". TB should take the time to hear the public and private comments and get it right as opposed to fixing a mistake that should have been thought about in the first place. I'd rather have a motion voted down or withdrawn if it has "issues", re-worded and put forth again in a better form as opposed to saying "oopsie", we made a mistake and don't want to look bad. Take the time (n.b. take the time) and do it right!

And we shouldn't have seat belts in cars either, since we just ought to do a better job of driving.

I am bowing to a reality that I know from years on TalkBoard.

What pray tell does that have to do with wording a motion properly and getting it right BEFORE putting it out for public comment? :confused: Unless you're saying "I'm sorry for rear-ending you-I see you got hurt because you were not wearing your seatbelt but if you put on your seatbelt, it's all good?" :rolleyes:

The most recent error was committed by me......and I take full responsibility for it — no excuses.

If TB is going to draft motions in the private forum, then they really should be read, reviewed, and if necessary, revised before they are officially motioned and seconded.

This ^

The President of Talkboard seems to feel he has the power to make minor changes to motions anyway. Is this needed at all?

Arguably not needed, but nice to have. Just like you can use duct tape instead of a seat belt, but the seat belt is so much easier and works better.

Common sense says things like typos shouldn't need an amendment process but should just be corrected if it's something as simple as a typo.

Cheers.

I don't see why the TB president shouldn't make minor changes that do not affect the intention of the motion - such as fixing typos - besides if anyone thinks the TB President as abusing their position they can complain to the Community Director.

Personally I can't really see the point of this. Common sense dictates that typos need to be fixed and that fixing them doesn't change the motion. And if a motion is badly written/wrong it should be withdrawn or voted down. Maybe what is needed is a way of rejecting motions which haven't been properly written?

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

...except for one minor detail:

The voting period had not started yet in this particular case.

Is this due to the recently adopted waiting period between site-wide announcement and the opening of TB voting on motions? If so then this waiting period may prove helpful in catching minor errors that may be corrected before voting begins and make a minor amendment process less necessary.

Actually, the error was caught before an official announcement was even posted; but I do agree with you that the waiting period certainly can be helpful to mitigate — or perhaps eliminate altogether — the need for a minor amendment process.

I posted a new thread with the official motion and notified the mods to make a site-wide announcement

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...t-process.html