Motion
 

I'd like to ask TB to consider this motion...

When a member decides to rescind their motion, I'm suggesting that TB set up a procedure for allowing this recision (midstream) in the process.

I'm sure that somewhere down the road, this situation will come up (again).

Why waste the time if a member feels their motion isn't important, or, they have changed their minds.

You can't rescind a TB motion you never made. While individual FTers can make requests, only TB members can initiate and second motions and, as I understand it, once that has been done and voting opens the motion cannot be withdrawn or otherwise vacated but merely voted down if the majority of TB disagree with it as presented regardless of how the original FTer feels about their original request. It's not a perfect system but it does work.

tcook,

I'm suggesting this as a preventative measure for the future.

dh

It would still require the TB member to rescind the motion, not the person who made the request that the TB is acting upon.

That being said, I actually do not think it makes sense to have motions pulled off the table once they are opened to voting. At that point if enough people think it is a bad idea they can vote no or abstain.

TalkBoard members, former members and interested lay members - has such a rescission ever happened after a motion was seconded / opened to voting?

I suppose once a motion is open to voting, the voting takes place regardless of who supports or opposes the motion... though I know TB is just an advisory board, so this process can probably be canned by executive order.

Isn't this the point? TB is merely an advisory board to the owner/chief of FT.

Maybe.

One issue that has come up more than once is where the vote has been posted in the public forum after several Talkboard members have already voted, and only then does some information come to light that may have influenced several votes and affected the outcome. Because of the rules on numbers required to pass votes (and also reversing votes), it is possible under current TB rules/policies that a vote which may never have been passed had the information come to light cannot be reversed.

A second issue is that some motions to vote have been poorly worded. More than once the person who made the initial request has sought to amend the wording, or withdraw the vote once it has been started. Currently, neither can be done.

I don't think this particular motion is the only way to resolve these 2 issues, and may even not be the best way.

Interesting!

Perhaps the process of an "AMENDMENT" would deal with motions on the table for deliberation.

I know that many motions can be improved in hindsight, especially with the vast contributions of the broad membership base.

A good thing can always be made better and a bad thing should always be corrected.

Is recind a new American attempt to re-write proper English for rescind?

I can remember only one case -- and that required Randy's intercession.

I don't agree with this suggestion. Let's say that I (if I were still on TB) have a particularly bad idea in mind and I make it as a motion. Let's go a step further and say that Koko seconds it only because he feels that any motion should be voted on. It soon becomes obvious that I am the only member who will vote for it.

Why should I be covered up for by TB? Isn't it better to let all of FT see the kind of thing that I favored?

It seems to me that this request stems from jan_az withdrawing her request to post a charitable appeal - but TB continuing with the approval process.

Common sense surely says that once a request for approval no longer exists then it's all a bit of a waste of time considering it. If I tell my boss I want a months holiday over Christmas and she agrees, but notes she'll need to speak to her boss to OK it, and then I withdraw my request - is it really going to be on the agenda next time she meets her boss?

Simple suggestions:

If the proposer and the seconder of a motion want to withdraw it before voting is complete - let them and just drop the issue. If two other mambers want to bring the motion again then they can.

If someone requests permission to make a charitable appeal and drops their request before the permission mas been granted (i.e. voting being complete on the motion in question) then simply abandon the approval process.

No more posting for me until I have that 2nd cup of coffee. :o

Is "Is recind a new American attempt to re-write proper English for rescind?" a new Australian attempt to re-write the proper English for "Is recind a new American attempt to re-write the proper English for rescind?!"?

Third coffee?

FWIW, the TB is working diligently (and has been since the Freddies) on a new set of TB guidelines and operating procedures.

Speaking only for myself and only revealing my own words, I am hopeful the new TB process will be more flexible, clearer, more transparent and allow for more TB member AND poster input than the current process.

We (and hopefully you) will soon see...

I'd prefer a position where 300 members of at least twelve months standing could over turn a decision of TalkBoard. But I imagine that is never going to happen!

And how many members of at least 12 months standing would be needed to overturn the decision of those 300?

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:

I started to use OTBMMFD and its variants to show the difference from when I was speaking for the TalkBoard as its liaison and when I am speaking as a TalkBoard member/FlyerTalker. Usually, I leave my sig in when I'm speaking as the latter. Still, it's nice to qualify my statements sometimes.

I am sure as a TalkBoard member that would give you effective control of the position. However, my suggestion was an attempt to redress the unbounded ability of TB to make and pass motions without any requirement to be representative or responsive, once elected.

But as I said, it's not going to happen.

Thank goodness for that. @:-)

Glen

Well, for example, during the recent discussion regarding MTW, I was asked several times if, in expressing my views, I was speaking for the entire TB or only for myself. I guess the line is obvious to TB regulars but not necessarily to casual TB observers.

On the other side, I have been 'questioned' a couple times on the private TB forum whether my posts here violated either the TB secrecy rules and/or the 'don't speak for other TB members' rules (such as they are....and they'll hopefully be codified by the guidelines initiative, mitigating the need to do it after that) so putting OTBMMFD is a CYA to avoid those 'questions,' too.

Of course, that's my opinion only and OTBMMFD! ;)