Voting Ended - Motion Passed: Add a Minor Amendment process
 

Moved by nsx and seconded by MSPeconomist:

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.


This vote will close on June 13, 2015 , at 3:00PM* CST or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.





Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:

A motion shall pass if at least two-thirds of the yes or no votes cast by TalkBoard members are ‘yes’ and a majority of the total TalkBoard membership votes 'yes' after voting opens 2 days after a site-wide announcement.

The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

So while there is already a thread and discussion on this general topic and it is safe to assume that TalkBoard members have reviewed that thread, this thread is about this specific motion.

Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback in this thread or the thread from the prevoius motion that failed found here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...t-process.html



*will revise exact time once site-wide announcement is made

Am I missing something, or is a member who has already voted yes prohibited from changing his/her vote after a "friendly amendment?"

Yes, but everyone who has already voted yes must approve the "friendly" amendment. If the amendment would cause a TB member to changehis/her vote from yes to no, then that TB member should refuse to approve the amendment.

Ok.

If the intent is to catch small oversights I don't see this as really necessary given the recently adopted waiting period between site-wide announcement and the opening of TB voting on motions may itself prove helpful in catching minor errors that can be corrected before voting begins.

If errors are caught before voting begins, this process can still be used. In that case, only the approval of the mover and seconder would be needed. Note that any TB member can propose the amendment as soon as the error is noticed.

I still say no to this as TB should take the time, listen to the comments and get the motion right the first time but if something is missed (other than a simple typo), withdraw the motion or have TB members simply vote no to kill the motion and re-do the motion to get it right

As I said in the other thread...

Agree. The route proposed in the motion is too circuitous. Any motion in its final form should be subjected to a de novo up or down vote.

THIS x2!

I agree with the above three posters.

Agree as well
 

I still wonder how TB has time to worry about this stuff. Get it right first time or kill it - that's the best 'Minor Amendment Process' ever.

Bolding mine: What a concept, huh? ;)

You are correct. But then, the "appearance of a kumbaya moment" will not occur.

:D ^

Ah yes, that's important of course. Let's hope for some revolution come the elections!

Agree.

While it is not an excuse, the motion which contained the typographical error committed by me occurred while I was traveling; and I was simply trying to get the process going.

I am human...What — are you trying to get rid of me already?

I just got here...

Typos don't need a minor amendment process unless TB has totally jumped the shark. No need to apologize for a typo unless it significantly changes a motion. Just say oops, sorry, fix it, & move on.

Cheers.

When arriving at decisions as a moderator, I usually defer to what FlyerTalk members think, as FlyerTalk members are typically quite sharp at deciphering and understanding situations. That has worked remarkably well for me in the past.

I personally see things similarly with decisions to be recommended by members of TalkBoard — especially as our top priority is to represent what FlyerTalk members want...

...so I agree with you — although I do not look like Fonzie on a surfboard in Hawaii...

Unfortunately we won't agree that you have the power to make minor amendments to motions. It's a fundamental difference we have debated in other threads. Without a specific power for this, the changes are ultra vires in my view.

Feel free to change the Guidelines and the problem goes away!

Fonzie was on water skis and was in LA. @:-)

I voted for this motion because I'd rather have minor changes done by a set of rules rather than by Presidential fiat.

The president of TalkBoard gets his own car?!?

I am going to have to run for office next year...

Motion will pass

In accordance with the guidelines that means we'll announce if a motion has passed or failed once enough yes or no votes have been recorded by TB members, this is the public notice that this motion will pass as it has secured 6 yes votes.

Please note that not all TB members have voted yet, and so a final announcement with who voted yes/no will not be posted until all 9 have voted or the voting period ends.

Not pleased but also definitely not surprised

I'm not either. It seems that there's less listening to what members want and more doing whatever they want.

I had not voted yet as I am currently traveling.

Greetings from Bahrain...

Nor have I as I just came off LHR-LAX-LHR (food poisoning) HEL-BKK-CDG-FCO-OSL-LHR last week (a week of work) and LHR-SVG-LHR yesterday.

Wanted to read through things on a regular screen vice just my phone before voting.

Having sifted through the thread again, I've voted, "No" even though the motion has passed and I'm in the minority.

We all make mistakes and common sense should persist, but I believe in doing our best collectively to get it right in the first place.

Hope you are feeling better!

Yes, thankfully, I have a fairly stable system. :)

Not that it really matters at this point; but I agree with rwoman and voted “no” as well — especially as I was the person who apparently caused the most recent kerfuffle in the first place with the motion for a vote...

On June 8, 2015 TalkBoard succeeded to pass 6-3-0:
"Add a Minor Amendment process"

Voting Yes: bdschobel, CMK10, jason8612, kokonutz, MSPeconomist, nsx
Voting No: Canarsie, dchristiva, rwoman

Thank you both ^

I waited until everyone voted before replying to some of the comments, but here goes:I didn't see it as necessary, either, but some people did, and having a written procedure for fixing minor problems can't do any harm.This "get it right the first time" mantra is silly. Everyone tries to get it right the first time. That's a given. But when it isn't right, we should be able to fix it without starting all over again. That's a waste of everybody's time. Why would anyone be in favor of doing that?I see no purpose whatsoever in forcing people to vote on a motion that has been recognized as flawed. The earlier votes would be wrong in many cases, and the overall vote tally would be meaningless. Furthermore, we would run the risk of actually passing a flawed motion. This is a very bad idea.We have to make time for "this stuff." I think it's superfluous, but now it's done, so we don't need to worry about how to handle minor problems in the future.That's my view, too, but some people obviously disagree -- strenuously, in a few cases.If all that we did was reflect "what FlyerTalk members want," then we wouldn't need TalkBoard at all. A polling process would be sufficient. I didn't run for TalkBoard to put my judgment to sleep.

Moreover, we never really know "what members think"; we know what just a few especially vocal members think. Maybe everyone else agrees with them, but maybe not. That's where our judgment comes into play.And that's just what we did.I'm happy either way. I just want some mechanism to fix minor, obvious errors, like we did recently.It's a very small car! :) This is a silly accusation, but you are entitled to your opinion.See comment above about the "get it right the first time" mantra.Huh? We fixed your typo by presidential fiat (to quote kokonutz). This new process is better than that, right? But you voted no? I have no idea why you voted the way you did. Really. If you think you explained it, then your explanation went right over my head.

Bruce

The typographical error was fixed without a minor amendment process; and the motion successfully transitioned into a vote.

You actually explained my reasoning better than I could attempt...

...but I expect no less from someone who drives around in a free Fiat...

I asked for a Lamborghini! :(

Bruce

I agree--thank you both, and thank you dchristiva!

And my additional thanks as well ^