I suggest 600 of 18 months standing.

I'm thinking that this idea falls within the ballpark of all that Randy has posted that he's considering regarding "the" motion that has been "discussed", and how to move forward from this point on.

I'm guessing he'll have read these comments, or the PM's that he's likely to have rec'd in response to his postings on the issue, and include it all in his work, no?

Good luck! I also wish the TB members can think a little bit more outside the box when it comes to motions; back during the post-count fiasco it seemed like only one motion was on the table, when there were members suggesting some interesting, but different proposals. The current process seems to linear for this modern, digital age.

Actually, it's going to go into the yank lexicon with a definition of "diminished abuse of bold text during unwarranted moments of emphasis in an online forum."

Or so I'm told.

Well, this topic is not solely about the TB charity approval process or the recent charity that was approved. OP just wants to abandon the somewhat rigid Roberts Rules of Order and permit more flexibility with motions once made and seconded. Personally, I don't see the need to change the workings of the machine simply because of this latest controversy. Tossing the rule book to allow motions to be made or withdrawn with fewer stipulations might in and of itself open TB up to a whole different can of worms at a later date.

I am not sure the Talkboard actually operates under Roberts Rules of Order. They did not when I was on the Board. If they are, then there are procedures as part of RRO that allows for motions to be rescinded.

We do try to but as an online community instead of a face-to-face community, RRofO presents a challenge at times. They were first developed in 1876 by General Henry M. Robert. And I don't think he envisioned either FlyerTalk or the Internet at that time. :)

I'm definitely not the Roberts expert here. Perhaps one of my compadres will elaborate the issues.

IME, the TB operates under a modified RRoO. One of the very frustrating things about serving on the TB to date, to me, has been the lack of written rules, procedures and guidelines for the TB. It's hard to be effective and accountable when no one knows for certain what the rules are, other than vague notions and a long list of precedents.

Hopefully the guidelines project will create more flexibility in terms of allowing debate and public input before a motion is finalized and also allow for amendments to motions during debate before voting on the motion starts.

That's what I'm arguing for in the private TB forum, anyway....

Other TB members may feel differently.

Amen, Koko. Amen.

How about the following motion:

"Other TB members may feel differently" shall be assumed to be at the end of every post by a TB member unless specifically stated otherwise.

That might cut down the bulk of this forum substantially!

Amen, Richard. Amen.

I feel some use this line to make a point or to be snotty. It could be omitted in just about every location.

From m-w.com:

Main Entry: 1fi·as·co
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fi·as·coes
Etymology: French, from Italian, from fare fiasco, literally, to make a bottle
Date: circa 1854
: a complete failure

So sorry you did not agree with the host of this private bulletin board making a decision to implement another decision from years ago. However, your use of the word "fiasco" is completely incorrect.

I agree.

However other TB members might disagree.

Isn't it always assumed that each TB member is speaking for themselves unless otherwise stated? :confused: