Loomio
Tue 2 Apr 2013 6:08AM

Amendment to a proposal

DS Dean Satchell Public Seen by 59

There is much to be said for formal meeting protocols.
For Loomio users a single proposal per discussion is limiting, but multiple proposals would be confusing and counter-productive - as discussed in "Suggest an alternative".

Formal meetings get around this as follows: An alternative or separate motion is not allowed until the current one is carried and becomes a resolution (or is lost). However, an amendment to the motion can be "put" by a participant during discussion of the original motion. This needs to be seconded. The important bit is that from this point only the amendment may be discussed. The amendment is discussed, and is then either carried or lost (i.e. voted on). If the amendment is carried, the original motion is amended and discussion continues on this. If the amendment is lost the original motion stands. Passing the amendment ONLY passes the amendment, not the amended motion. The process was to amend the motion, not to create a new one. For a nice flow chart on this go to
http://www.community.net.nz/NR/rdonlyres/F37C7CDC-1A86-479C-A576-EFD3ADEC994C/37030/crk10meetings.pdf (pg 3 of "formal meetings")

MB

Matthew Bartlett Thu 22 Aug 2013 6:25PM

Hi @deansatchell — have you seen the 'ideas' feature mockups? I wonder if it helps address your concerns?

DS

Dean Satchell Thu 22 Aug 2013 10:00PM

Thanks @matthewbartlett you have indeed provided a potential solution. Maybe one that does not require a chair or moderator, and which would completely transform this tool.

DS

Danyl Strype Fri 23 Aug 2013 12:31PM

It just occurred to me that the statements we enter when we indicate our position ('yes', 'abstain'...) could be used for amendments! Now the group would have to be conscious of this usage for it to work, because if someone proposed as amendment which would make the proposal unacceptable to someone who has already said 'yes', there would need to be a discussion in the comments about whether that amendment can get consensus, and if not, either it would have to be withdrawn, or some people might change their position to 'no'.

Now with some minor modification to the position statement feature, like a tick box indicating an amendment rather than a general comment, and a requirement for a seconder, the process @deansatchell describes would be implemented.

DS

Dean Satchell Sat 24 Aug 2013 4:02AM

@strypey , agreed.

So, thinking through the process, one could make a position statement "Proposed amendment:..." and then someone else could make a position statement "I second the amendment". However, "Your position" needs to be selected from the options, so maybe the "block" option should only available for amendments. However, even if a block (amendment) were seconded, it might require more than consensus to pass... so will need voting on. Once a proposal is blocked and an amendment proposed, the amendment shouldn't yet be the proposal because support from the group for the amendment is yet to be ascertained. Thus only acceptance of the amendment can be voted on. If accepted, the decision is made that the amendment is now the proposal. If the amendment is not accepted the proposal reverts to the original proposal. If the original proposal is subsequently voted down then it simply becomes a previous decision and anyone is free to make a new proposal.

Some questions though. What happens when somebody changes their position? Does their original position statement remain or is it replaced? What about the timeline for a decision, how is this currently set?

However, all that said, in my view @matthewbartlett has maybe come up with a more collaborative approach. By having "ideas" between "comments" and "positions" the flow might be more linear and consensus-friendly. Ideas receive group support before they become a proposal and so an amendment is maybe less "forced"?