I understand what reinstating the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is meant to do, but I don't think that the plan to treat most OTC attempts as motions to Postpone Indefinitely would have the desired effect, because, as you suggested, the meeting could overrule you. Since the Business Meeting regulars are used to the OTC, I could imagine the proceeding going something like this:
Chairman: "Next on the agenda, Item 4.1.7, constitutional amendment to create a Young Adult Hugo." Member: "I object to consideration." Other members: "Second!" Chairman: "As I stated previously, the chair will consider the Objection to Consideration as a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, which is allowed 4 minutes of debate and requires a 2/3 vote." Member: "Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the chair. I really do mean this to be an Objection to Consideration, not a motion to Postpone Indefinitely." Other members: "Second!" Chairman: "Those in favor of overturning the ruling of the chair and making this an Objection to Consideration, raise your hand. ..."
Besides, other Business Meeting chairs in the future might not want to treat OTCs as motions to Postpone Indefinitely. Thus, reinstating Postpone Indefinitely could wind up as just being another way to dump items from the agenda, not a way to enable more items to be heard.
I think reinstating Postpone Indefinitely could work if it were combined with a standing rules change to restrict OTCs against proposals that have a given number of supporters. Thus, you could say to the regulars, "Some of the proposals you might otherwise have OTC'd will be protected from that -- however, you will now be able to postpone them indefinitely which is another way to get rid of them." And you could say to newcomers introducing proposals, "If you have at least X number of supporters when you submit your proposal and/or at the preliminary business meeting, you won't get cut off entirely. Your proposal might be subjected to being postponed indefinitely, which would effectively kill it -- but before that happens, you'll get 2 out of 4 minutes of the debate to explain why your proposal ought to be heard."
no subject
Chairman: "Next on the agenda, Item 4.1.7, constitutional amendment to create a Young Adult Hugo."
Member: "I object to consideration."
Other members: "Second!"
Chairman: "As I stated previously, the chair will consider the Objection to Consideration as a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, which is allowed 4 minutes of debate and requires a 2/3 vote."
Member: "Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the chair. I really do mean this to be an Objection to Consideration, not a motion to Postpone Indefinitely."
Other members: "Second!"
Chairman: "Those in favor of overturning the ruling of the chair and making this an Objection to Consideration, raise your hand. ..."
Besides, other Business Meeting chairs in the future might not want to treat OTCs as motions to Postpone Indefinitely. Thus, reinstating Postpone Indefinitely could wind up as just being another way to dump items from the agenda, not a way to enable more items to be heard.
I think reinstating Postpone Indefinitely could work if it were combined with a standing rules change to restrict OTCs against proposals that have a given number of supporters. Thus, you could say to the regulars, "Some of the proposals you might otherwise have OTC'd will be protected from that -- however, you will now be able to postpone them indefinitely which is another way to get rid of them." And you could say to newcomers introducing proposals, "If you have at least X number of supporters when you submit your proposal and/or at the preliminary business meeting, you won't get cut off entirely. Your proposal might be subjected to being postponed indefinitely, which would effectively kill it -- but before that happens, you'll get 2 out of 4 minutes of the debate to explain why your proposal ought to be heard."
--J. Kreitzer