TalkBoard Topics - Voting Closed - Motion Failed: Abstentions Don't Count Against Passage of Motions

(Vote posted 18 Dec; apologies for not posting this sooner)

Moved by jackal and seconded by Markie:

The TalkBoard recommends that the TalkBoard Guidelines be amended as follows:

Section 4, paragraph C, sub-paragraph ii be replaced with the following text:

TalkBoard members may participate in a vote by registering their vote of yes or no while the voting period is open. They may also decline to participate in a vote by marking that they abstain, in which case they shall not be counted as participating members. Such abstention shall not count as non-participation for the purpose of enforcing Section 3(F)(vii)(b) of the TalkBoard guidelines.

Section 4, paragraph C, sub-paragraph vii be replaced with the following text:

A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote, but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’

This vote will close 1 Jan 2011.

FWIW the thread title should IMHO more accurately read abstentions not to count towards majority but that's a tad pedantic I suppose.

At any rate maybe this will clear things up so those that dislike the abstention option so let's just pass it any move on to other "trivial" things.

FWIW the thread title should IMHO more accurately read abstentions not to count towards majority but that's a tad pedantic I suppose.

At any rate maybe this will clear things up so those that dislike the abstention option so let's just pass it any move on to other "trivial" things.

Just so I am clear, do you feel this issue is "trivial?"

I support this motion and hope that it passes. TB members should either support or not support issues they are voting on and should someone abstain from a vote, it should not count toward the vote itself.

Thank you to all the Talk Board Members for their service. Have a great holiday all! :)

Just so I am clear, do you feel this issue is "trivial?"

Not at all, hence my use of the quotations marks as I was quoting others (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15455456-post20.html) who called it trivial a trivial issue, to which I disagreed (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15456351-post22.html) but this motion should end this whole lengthy debate so any solution seems attractive. ;)

Originally Posted by bhatnasx

As noted in the previous lengthy threads on this discussion topic, I personally believe that it should not be an "easy" or "lightly" considered decision to change something about FT - be it a new forum or a recommendation to change some inherent feature of FT.

I think that 66.6% minimum of all those participating in choosing YES, NO, or ABSTAIN need to be vote positively for a motion. Yes, I realize that ABSTAIN is essentially a NO vote in that case - however, if someone felt strongly enough to not vote positively for something, then in my mind, they're voting against it.

Also, FWIW, we don't follow Roberts Rules of Order to the tee - we follow a relaxed version & this is the practice that has been followed for several years & I do not see a need to change it.


I agree with you.

I don't see a problem with the existing setup - one has the option to abstain and not have that abstention count as "not participating".


Agree. Both are current and past Talkboard members.

Not voting has ALWAYS been used by some on Talkboard to hopefully ensure a desired result, as both know.

I was on Talkboard for 2 years and saw that occur many times by many Talkboard members.

Bottom line SIX votes should always be needed to see any motion succeed.

That is how things have worked successfully for about 10 years, and there is no reason to change it IMHO.

If this motion succeeds it will be possible for a motion to pass with only FIVE of the 9 members voting for it, as far as I can see.

For what it's worth, after much thought I voted against this motion. While I do believe the procedure needs to be clarified, I still believe that six votes should be required for a motion of pass. In practice it probably wouldn't have been significant one way or another, since it's very rare for this clarification to be the deciding factor. But still, I think we're better off doing this right. So I voted against this motion though will certainly suggest different wording once the voting is done for this motion, should it not pass.

Kudos to those trying to eliminate the 'coward's no' by moving this proposal.

As for the 'need' for six yes or no votes, that's silly. If 8 TB members abstain from a vote then those TB members do not want to particate in the outcome of the vote. Their wish should be honored rather than turning their 'abstain' vote into a 'no' vote just because a certain number of them want to abstain.

IMHO.

Kudos to those trying to eliminate the 'coward's no' by moving this proposal.

FWIW I dislike this term as some TBers may for various reasons be unable to reach a decision on a topic at hand and may opt to abstain but that to me hardly makes them cowards.

FWIW I dislike this term as some TBers may for various reasons be unable to reach a decision on a topic at hand and may opt to abstain but that to me hardly makes them cowards.

+1

Just so I am clear, do you feel this issue is "trivial?"


I certainly do. It is made trivial by the addition of the following:

A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote, but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’

As TB almost always has 9 members, that paragraph means that 5 must vote "yes".

Let's see what this changes:

6, 7, 8, or 9 vote "Yes" and the motion passes even without this change.

1, 2, 3, or 4 vote "Yes" and the motion fails with or without this change.

5 vote yes, 3 vote no, and 1 abstains: The vote gets 62.5% and fails, with or without this change.

The only change will be where 5 vote "yes" and 2 or less vote "no" with the remainder abstaining. I can not remember that ever happening.

FWIW I dislike this term as some TBers may for various reasons be unable to reach a decision on a topic at hand and may opt to abstain but that to me hardly makes them cowards.

Well unfortunately for those who currently vote 'abstain' with pure intentions, their vote can too easily be interpreted at a coward's no.

As this proposal would lift that stain from their intentions, all the more reason for its quick passage. ^

That said, I don't think 'I can't make up my mind' is a good reason to abstain. TB members are elected to make up their minds. If they cannot, they should step down.

A good reason to abstain, to my mind, is a conflict of interest or the TB member does not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand based on the debate and information provided.

In any case, whatever the motivation for the abstention, abstentions should not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum, never in deciding the outcome.

That said, I don't think 'I can't make up my mind' is a good reason to abstain. TB members are elected to make up their minds. If they cannot, they should step down.
A good reason to abstain, to my mind, is a conflict of interest or the TB member does not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand based on the debate and information provided.

I 100% agree with you, but I even think that abstaining because of a lack of information is not excusable either. TB members are elected to best represent the values of the membership, which means if there is debate about an issue they are unfamiliar with, asking questions or doing the research necessary to become better informed should be the way to go, not abstaining from the vote.

Of course we elect them to make decisions but I won't call them cowards for refusing to make one should they be unable to devote the requisite time to research a topic and decide upon the motion at hand to their satisfaction because of other commitments.

FWIW I'd rather have an abstention cast than an uninformed 'yes' or 'no' on a topic but that's just MHO.

Of course we elect them to make decisions but I won't call them cowards for refusing to make one should they be unable to devote the requisite time to research a topic and decide upon the motion at hand to their satisfaction because of other commitments.

FWIW I'd rather have an abstention cast than an uninformed 'yes' or 'no' on a topic but that's just MHO.

If someone can't find the time in the 2-plus weeks a vote is open and being discussed, maybe they shouldn't have made the commitment to TB.

That is how things have worked successfully for about 10 years, and there is no reason to change it IMHO. That's just not correct. During some of ozstamp's time on TB, this was not the process, as was discussed in the previous discussion thread. There's a chance that he even voted in the vote to change the practice from how it is now, to how it was before the new TB rules were voted in two years ago.

If we're going to quote ancient history, we should make sure we get it correct!

I'd ask TB members to think about how things were when this rule was generally in place, and see if any problems developed as a result of this.

If for no reason other than this rule brings in some clarification to a section otherwise open to interpretation, I support it.

If someone can't find the time in the 2-plus weeks a vote is open and being discussed, maybe they shouldn't have made the commitment to TB.

Sorry but being unable to devote the proper time to fully research one motion in a two years term hardly makes me jump to that same conclusion. The point is unlike some I can't call those TBers who select the abstain option cowards. YMMV.

I've re-read all the various threads re: this & still have a headache figuring out what 'is is'. Voting is still open, so I'm sure I'll be rereading them a few more times before casting my vote.

One thing I am certain of is my 100% disapproval of the phrase coward, especially towards one's fellow FTers.

Cheers.

That's just not correct. During some of ozstamp's time on TB, this was not the process, as was discussed in the previous discussion thread. There's a chance that he even voted in the vote to change the practice from how it is now, to how it was before the new TB rules were voted in two years ago.

If we're going to quote ancient history, we should make sure we get it correct!



Huih?

If you are invoking history, please post a link to anywhere I that voted to change the common sense policy that presently exists for ANY motion to succeed.

Otherwise your post is simply demonstrating failing memory I'd suggest, rather than fact of any kind.

As I posted, and no-one (you included) has refuted -

If this motion succeeds it will be possible for a motion to pass with only FIVE of the 9 members voting for it, as far as I can see.

OzStamps was not on TalkBoard when the motion to only count "yes" or "no" votes was passed in October 05, as shown in this announcement made by Spiff:

The TalkBoard has passed, 7-2 a motion that for purposes of TalkBoard votes, only "Yes" and "No" votes will be considered when calculating whether a vote passes or fails. Abstentions and non-voting will be noted but will not be considered in the vote total.

Voting yes: attorney28, Dovster, kempis, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey

Voting no: gleff, Starwood Lurker

It must have been months before he was voted on then (the November 05 election?) - thanks for digging, I couldn't quite remember if he had been on at that time.

But we are all agreed that his claim that the voting system has been unchanged for ten years is quite patently wrong then, and it seems for all the time he was on TB, the system of counting votes was different from that which he is arguing to defend. I guess on the failing memory comment above, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? ;)

It must have been months before he was voted on then (the November 05 election?) - thanks for digging, I couldn't quite remember if he had been on at that time.



Is that a curious way of conceding your last post was in fact factually incorrect?

Bottom line SIX votes should always be needed to see any motion succeed.



Actually, Oz, although you were not on TalkBoard you did post in favor of the change which counted only those who actually voted yes or no. In theory, that could have allowed a vote to pass with only one vote in favor (if all other TB members abstained):

I was Vice President on a trade Association who had similar wording from many moons back in the constitution.

We changed it to read that motions would carry when 2/3rds of those members who chose to vote carried it. i.e. if 9 members VOTED it took 6 votes to carry it, even if there were 15 Committee members eligible to vote. If all 15 voted it needed 10 votes to carry it etc.

As you point out in a small TalkBoard in number a few abstentions can nearly mean nothing ever gets approved under the current way you count votes.

Actually, Oz, although you were not on TalkBoard you did post in favor of the change which counted only those who actually voted yes or no. In theory, that could have allowed a vote to pass with only one vote in favor (if all other TB members abstained):

Hm, Sep 19, 05 Ozstamps was a wise, wise man! ^

Is that a curious way of conceding your last post was in fact factually incorrect?
Emmm, no, it wasn't.

If i had said 'ozstamps voted that way' then I would have been wrong. But I didn't - I was unsure if you had or hadn't.

But I find it odd your obsession with what I said being factually incorrect, and my concessions, when there is a rather large ten-year working successfully elephant in the room which you are ignoring. So perhaps we could dispense with this and return to the discussion? I corrected a factual mistake you made before anyone was mislead by it. We've now established you were incorrect, you didn't vote for it then, but you did argue for it, but now you are arguing against it.

My headache continues, especially since when one is looking for input & history - and it's all over the place, even amongst those who previously served on TB for crikey's sake. I'm re-reading threads both in public & private TB, and folk definitely don't have the same opinion re: abstain or simple/super majority. So I'll re-read again folks input on the various TB threads - and I'm also reaching out to regular FT members who don't follow TB per se but might have an opinion on the topic & don't have any history or baggage associated w/ the topic, to get their input. I of course am directing them to the threads & am hoping they won't run away screaming ;) :D

Cheers.

I certainly do. It is made trivial by the addition of the following:



As TB almost always has 9 members, that paragraph means that 5 must vote "yes".

Let's see what this changes:

6, 7, 8, or 9 vote "Yes" and the motion passes even without this change.

1, 2, 3, or 4 vote "Yes" and the motion fails with or without this change.

5 vote yes, 3 vote no, and 1 abstains: The vote gets 62.5% and fails, with or without this change.

The only change will be where 5 vote "yes" and 2 or less vote "no" with the remainder abstaining. I can not remember that ever happening.

You are correct.

The addition of that requirement was implemented to [at least attempt to] placate a few TalkBoard members who felt that simply allowing a vote to pass without some protection against a minimum quorum went too far.

Personally, I would like to see it go back to the way it was when the motion I presented in 2005 was passed. No minimum "voting" requirement... those who choose to "Participate" and vote "Yes or No" are the ones who determine a motions passing.

Too easy otherwise to not take a position and allow a motion to die.

Personally, I would like to see it go back to the way it was when the motion I presented in 2005 was passed. No minimum "voting" requirement... those who choose to "Participate" and vote "Yes or No" are the ones who determine a motions passing.

Too easy otherwise to not take a position and allow a motion to die.

Amen, brother.

The whole POINT of an abstain vote option in the first place is to create a quorum even if folks choose not to take a position.

The notion of 'abstain' has been severely perverted by the current process. In essence if one truly wants to 'abstain' one must not vote at all. Otherwise their 'abstain' vote is actually a NO vote. And of course, if one truly abstains in the current process by not voting at all too many times, then one runs afoul of the TB guidelines and risks being booted from the board.

So I'd be ok with requiring a quorum of 5, but if 1 votes yes and 4 vote abstain and 4 fail to vote at all, then your quorum is met and the motion passes with 100% support.

So I'd be ok with requiring a quorum of 5, but if 1 votes yes and 4 vote abstain and 4 fail to vote at all, then your quorum is met and the motion passes with 100% support.

Then you'd better run for TalkBoard again, because that will never pass with the current makeup of TalkBoard.

(FWIW, I wouldn't be opposed to this, since it's the standard interpretation for virtually every other organization on the planet that follows Robert's Rules of Order—except for us, apparently.)

Then you'd better run for TalkBoard again, because that will never pass with the current makeup of TalkBoard.

(FWIW, I wouldn't be opposed to this, since it's the standard interpretation for virtually every other organization on the planet that follows Robert's Rules of Order—except for us, apparently.)

Oh, I certainly get it that the current TB isn't likely to change this policy, as illogical as it is. Too many of the TB members WANT 'abstain' to count as a 'no.' I'm told it is rude to say it's because it allows for a 'coward's no,' but since that's what I believe, that's what I'll say.

And your proposal is an improvement over the status quo and if it gets you a vote or two from the 'NO CHANGES!' contingent on TB then alls the better. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough. ^

In any case, it'll be interesting to see how the voting turns out on this. I wonder if anyone will abstain!? :D

Too many of the TB members WANT 'abstain' to count as a 'no.' I'm told it is rude to say it's because it allows for a 'coward's no,' but since that's what I believe, that's what I'll say.

In any case, it'll be interesting to see how the voting turns out on this. I wonder if anyone will abstain!? :D

Have all 9 said they want abstain to count as a no? I know I haven't said that. :confused:

BTW - with the back/forth & folk posting different #s of how it impacts (or doesn't) & what 'is is' means changing from 2005 to 2008 (weren't you the one who helped draft the guidelines - how'd ya let that one pass by you :p), the thought of abstaining did cross my mind ;) :D

But I believe abstain should be used rarely & only when there is a conflict of interest or if a person hasn't had time to do research due to travel or real-world work. In those instances I don't think that abstain is taking the coward's way; in fact, the opposite, of not just tossing in a vote (yes or no) simply to say one voted without doing due diligence.

If one does use abstain to avoid an outright no vote, I don't think that's appropriate behavior. Right or wrong (and I'm sure I'll be both during the next 2 years!), people will always know where I stand on things.

FWIW - the thought of abstaining did actually pass my mind (and the irony is not lost on me) ;) :D, but I figure being confused by the back/forth, the #s, and how it impacts everything wasn't a good reason to not vote. Or actually maybe it is LOL...

I haven't made up my mind yet yes/no & as mentioned previously, have reached out to a # of the 'regular' FT members everyone is so fond of reminding us that we represent to get their input, in addition to those who post here on a regular basis.

Cheers. Sharon

As TB almost always has 9 members, that paragraph means that 5 must vote "yes".

Let's see what this changes:

6, 7, 8, or 9 vote "Yes" and the motion passes even without this change.

1, 2, 3, or 4 vote "Yes" and the motion fails with or without this change.

5 vote yes, 3 vote no, and 1 abstains: The vote gets 62.5% and fails, with or without this change.

The only change will be where 5 vote "yes" and 2 or less vote "no" with the remainder abstaining. I can not remember that ever happening.This analysis seems flawless to me. The change is likely to be inconsequential most of the time.

Bruce

BTW - with the back/forth & folk posting different #s of how it impacts (or doesn't) & what 'is is' means changing from 2005 to 2008 (weren't you the one who helped draft the guidelines - how'd ya let that one pass by you :p), the thought of abstaining did cross my mind ;) :D



Yep, I sure was. And I went back and looked at my notes after you pointed this out. It appears I accepted ozstamps (now shown to be incorrect) claim that the guidelines as currently drafted simply enshrined the staus quo at the time the guidelines were created. I'm pretty sure you can check the private TB debate records from the time of the drafting and consideration of the guidelines...I may have posted something to that effect there, too.

I apologize to the community for this sloppy due diligence! :eek::o

For the second time this month, koko gets an "I fully agree". My perception is tha abstentions have been used by some as a political tool by some on TB to "hedge" and avoid being accused of blocking something they are, in fact, not in favor of.

If you are incapable of having a reasoned opinion on something, you shouldn't be on the TB.

Well unfortunately for those who currently vote 'abstain' with pure intentions, their vote can too easily be interpreted at a coward's no.

As this proposal would lift that stain from their intentions, all the more reason for its quick passage. ^

That said, I don't think 'I can't make up my mind' is a good reason to abstain. TB members are elected to make up their minds. If they cannot, they should step down.

A good reason to abstain, to my mind, is a conflict of interest or the TB member does not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand based on the debate and information provided.

In any case, whatever the motivation for the abstention, abstentions should not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum, never in deciding the outcome.

Help me to get this right.

1. 2005 - A motion to change how voting would be tallied was passed. This motion stated 'only "Yes" and "No" votes will be considered when calculating whether a vote passes or fails'. It specifically dealt with not treating abstention votes the same as a "No" vote.

2. 2008 - A document to "codify" the rules around the TB was created and approved by TB. This document was not meant to "change" any rules and was only to "quantify" what the already agreed upon rules for TB were.

3. Some time later it was noted that the document had accidentally misrepresented what the 2005 motion stated.


If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.

So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.

If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.

So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.

You are right. The problem is that there are some members of TB who are vehemently against most changes (check to see how often these members have voted against the establishment of any forum except when it was asked for by Randy).

They prefer to be able to block changes by requiring a higher number of "yes" votes.

Help me to get this right.

1. 2005 - A motion to change how voting would be tallied was passed. This motion stated 'only "Yes" and "No" votes will be considered when calculating whether a vote passes or fails'. It specifically dealt with not treating abstention votes the same as a "No" vote.

2. 2008 - A document to "codify" the rules around the TB was created and approved by TB. This document was not meant to "change" any rules and was only to "quantify" what the already agreed upon rules for TB were.

3. Some time later it was noted that the document had accidentally misrepresented what the 2005 motion stated.


If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.

So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.It's an extremely dangerous slippery slope to start reading "intentions" into actions of years ago about which people's recollections may disagree. We have only the language that was enacted into law, so to speak. We do not have sufficient "legislative history" to effectively modify that language -- and even if we did (as does the U.S. Congress, for instance), it is used only to resolve ambiguities. The language that was enacted in 2008 seems unambiguous to me. If we don't like it, we should change it with a new vote.

Bruce

It's an extremely dangerous slippery slope to start reading "intentions" into actions of years ago about which people's recollections may disagree. We have only the language that was enacted into law, so to speak.I do understand what you are saying and don't necessarily disagree. But based on comments in this thread and looking back at the 2008 threads, it seemed pretty clear that the TB rules "codification" wasn't meant to change anything. It was only meant to put down in writing what the processes and rules were.

If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.

So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.

Isn't the current motion being voted upon just that, a correction to ammend the 2008 TB Guidelines as it spcifically relates to this voting section? The fix is in, so to speak, so why would another motion needed to be crafted and submitted?

Except that this motion does not return things to the way it was in 2005... it puts a 5 vote minimum (voting "Yes" or "No") in order for a motion to pass.

I would much prefer to see it go back to the way it was in 2005; especially considering that there appears to have been no discussion to actually change that policy when the 2008 rules were codified.

Isn't the current motion being voted upon just that, a correction to ammend the 2008 TB Guidelines as it spcifically relates to this voting section? The fix is in, so to speak, so why would another motion needed to be crafted and submitted?

FYI - I voted Yes this morning.

Cheers.

On 31 Dec 2010, the TalkBoard failed to pass 4-5:

Moved by jackal and seconded by Markie:

The TalkBoard recommends that the TalkBoard Guidelines be amended as follows:

Section 4, paragraph C, sub-paragraph ii be replaced with the following text:

TalkBoard members may participate in a vote by registering their vote of yes or no while the voting period is open. They may also decline to participate in a vote by marking that they abstain, in which case they shall not be counted as participating members. Such abstention shall not count as non-participation for the purpose of enforcing Section 3(F)(vii)(b) of the TalkBoard guidelines.

Section 4, paragraph C, sub-paragraph vii be replaced with the following text:

A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote, but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’

Voting Yes: Cholula, jackal, Markie, SkiAdcock

Voting No: B747-437B, bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Spiff

It is actually immaterial as this change would have impacted very few, if any, votes.

A true reform would have been to return to the 2005 decision, which would have meant eliminating these words "but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’"

It is actually immaterial as this change would have impacted very few, if any, votes.

A true reform would have been to return to the 2005 decision, which would have meant eliminating these words "but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’"

I'd be happy to resubmit the motion as you propose, but I'd expect to see the same voting results. I inserted that verbiage in there after some discussion in the private forum, but the members that was intended to appease ended up voting against the measure anyway.

I'd be happy to resubmit the motion as you propose, but I'd expect to see the same voting results. I inserted that verbiage in there after some discussion in the private forum, but the members that was intended to appease ended up voting against the measure anyway.

So much for the spirit of consensus we were hearing about behind closed doors on TB. Thanks for trying and maybe another attempt to scale the heights of this issue can be mounted one day soon.

I'd be happy to resubmit the motion as you propose, but I'd expect to see the same voting results. I inserted that verbiage in there after some discussion in the private forum, but the members that was intended to appease ended up voting against the measure anyway.

I'd be happy to second that motion, but agree with jackal that we won't get it past this TB.

Voting Yes: Cholula, jackal, Markie, SkiAdcock

Voting No: B747-437B, bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Spiff

Nive notes and 6 are thus needed to pass.

Common sense prevailed on yet another rmotion. It clearly had no need to be changed.

Nive notes and 6 are thus needed to pass.

Common sense prevailed on yet another rmotion. It clearly had no need to be changed.

Really? So you're saying all the other years when abstentions didn't count as no were incorrect?

I think you need to edit your post to say 'in your opinion'. Since a # of other - including former TB members & also regular FT members - did think the change was appropriate (and one is probably kicking himself right not for not catching the change before the guidlines got voted upon ;)) , I don't think your 'clearly had no need' is accurate.

I talked to a lot of regular FT members: via PM, email & on the phone before casting my vote. Not one of them supported abstentions counting as a 'no', which is actually what the motion was about. Some didn't think abstentions should be allowed at all, but a # thought abstention was ok if used when there was a conflict of interest or someone was truly going to be on the road/couldn't do their research. None thought it appropriate if used as a way of casting no w/o being obvious about it.

BTW - before anyone says I 'coached' them, I did not do so. I sent them all links to the discussions on this forum, asked them if they had time to check them out, said I was struggling w/ my decision/the math/stats/outcomes & what it might affect, and simply asked for their input. I didn't try to steer them one way or the other. I also said if they didn't have time to respond to me that was ok. A # did respond, but some said due to the holiday they couldn't & wished me the best.

Cheers. Sharon

Sharon, thanks for the explanation.

Can those that voted no please explain why they voted against something which has been in place previously?

Can those that voted no please explain why they voted against something which has been in place previously?Obviously, I can't read anybody's mind, but I'll simply point out that voting no was effectively reinforcing the change made in 2008 (ignoring certain unlikely events). That's a reasonable position to take, even if the 2008 change did something unintended (as may have been the case).

Bruce

You could make that argument, but the 2008 vote was such a long involved process that it doesn't mean that everyone who voted in favour of the guidelines necessarily agreed with absolutely everything about them.

So now they've had to specifically endorse it, I'd really like to know why they think it's a better system than that which was in place between 2005 and 2008 and which was largely supported by the members who posted their opinions about it.

I'm really not taking sides on this (even though it may appear that I am), but the 2005, 2008 and 2010 voting systems are effectively equivalent if nearly all Talk Board members vote, as they usually do. The three systems produce differing results only with 2 or more abstentions. Unless that happens a lot, then we're making a lot of fuss about nothing.

Bruce

Can those that voted no please explain why they voted against something which has been in place previously?

I believe that we should retain the requirement for a supermajority for change and would not like it watered down, even to 5-2-2 = pass.

I believe that we should retain the requirement for a supermajority for change and would not like it watered down, even to 5-2-2 = pass.

Yet in 2005 you voted in favor of the motion which would have allowed even a 1-0-8 vote to pass. There were no negative results from the several years that the rule stood. Why the change of mind?

Yet in 2005 you voted in favor of the motion which would have allowed even a 1-0-8 vote to pass. There were no negative results from the several years that the rule stood. Why the change of mind?

In 5 years, I've come to appreciate that FlyerTalk for the most part is running quite well and that changing things should be via a true super-majority.

In 5 years, I've come to appreciate that FlyerTalk for the most part is running quite well and that changing things should be via a true super-majority.

Personally, I think that a super-majority should be reserved for issues of major importance and TB doesn't even touch those.

About the most controversial question it is liable to face is whether or not Iberia is going to get its own forum and whether or not Iberia does the foundations of FlyerTalk are not going to crumble.

Requiring a super-majority to approve a forum merely means that a minority can block it. If 5 members favor it, 2 oppose it, and 2 don't bother casting a ballot, the super-minority winds up making the decision.

I believe that we should retain the requirement for a supermajority for change and would not like it watered down, even to 5-2-2 = pass.

+1

As previously stated, I don't think that changes should be taken lightly. I also view casting a ballot, be it for Yes, No, or Abstain, as participating in the vote.

. I also view casting a ballot, be it for Yes, No, or Abstain, as participating in the vote.

If someone posts here saying that he does not want to get involved in this debate, do you view him as participating in the debate?

Sometimes the most honourable course of action is to not get involved. I'm not a fan of status quo abstain-means-no but I'm even less a fan of reducing the supermajority requirement. If I had to pick between them I'd probably abstain. :)

Sometimes the most honourable course of action is to not get involved.

Given your trio of abstentions in 2010 voting it's unsurprising you'd feel that way. Sometimes the most honourable course of action is to get involved, especially for a TB member.

Well this outcome is the sort of approach that is making the TB increasingly irrelevant. Now the TB has even managed to have the question of megathreads taken out of its purview through inaction. And apparently the rest of the TOS with it.

Since the TB is basically making itself irrelevant in matters that actually matter by requiring such high levels of super-super-majority consensus, I wonder if the moderators or new FT Host have considered engaging in some sort of direct poster feed back sessions, focus groups or just a chat session once in a while? If not, I strongly suggest they think about it.

Because as a source of poster feedback, input and recommendations, imho the TB is mired in inaction and status-quoism.

Given your trio of abstentions in 2010 voting it's unsurprising you'd feel that way. Sometimes the most honourable course of action is to get involved, especially for a TB member.

Yes, sometimes it is. No argument there.

Well this outcome is the sort of approach that is making the TB increasingly irrelevant. Now the TB has even managed to have the question of megathreads taken out of its purview through inaction. And apparently the rest of the TOS with it.

Since the TB is basically making itself irrelevant in matters that actually matter by requiring such high levels of super-super-majority consensus, I wonder if the moderators or new FT Host have considered engaging in some sort of direct poster feed back sessions, focus groups or just a chat session once in a while? If not, I strongly suggest they think about it.

Because as a source of poster feedback, input and recommendations, imho the TB is mired in inaction and status-quoism.

Well it is not like the former host really left......so I wouldn't think that the status quo would change with this non-departure ! That said, the only way that open dialogue with the customers of the website would happen is if the website stats were to go south drastically.......kind of like how the airlines come cap in hand back to the their best customers after a few bad quarters!

I'd appreciate lucky9876coins and gleff giving their reasons for voting no on this. I understand they don't have to, but I also, as a person they are supposed to represent, do have the right to ask why they voted in a way which doesn't represent my views on this.

Sometimes the most honourable course of action is to not get involved.

I'm sorry, I just don't get that comment. How can a Talk Board member not get involved? When I vote for candidates to be on the Talk Board, I expect them, as my representatives, to get involved. :confused:

I'd appreciate lucky9876coins and gleff giving their reasons for voting no on this. I understand they don't have to, but I also, as a person they are supposed to represent, do have the right to ask why they voted in a way which doesn't represent my views on this.

I've been on record elsewhere and consistently over time that I believe we ought to be

* working towards consensus amongst the group, for solutions that are big enough winners to garner substantial support

* not tinkering with things that are 'on the bubble', if we arent really substantially sure a change makes things better we ought not do it.

I don't want to lower the bar to tinker with the rules, the forums, or the experience of Flyertalk.

I'm sorry, I just don't get that comment. How can a Talk Board member not get involved?

I'll give an example. There was recently a vote on the motion to create a Brazil forum. It had overwhelming support among TB members. I was traveling and didn't have time to research the motion quite yet. In the meanwhile, enough people voted to pass the motion to render my vote irrelevant. I then got involved with flight delays and misconnects that delayed my return by 2 additional days. Instead of delaying my vote and the final results, I voted to abstain as the result was beyond doubt already.

In that case, IMHO, the honourable course of action was to abstain rather than to delay the passing of a motion that already had achieved sufficient votes to pass while I researched the background. YMMV.

I'll give an example. There was recently a vote on the motion to create a Brazil forum. It had overwhelming support among TB members. I was traveling and didn't have time to research the motion quite yet. In the meanwhile, enough people voted to pass the motion to render my vote irrelevant. I then got involved with flight delays and misconnects that delayed my return by 2 additional days. Instead of delaying my vote and the final results, I voted to abstain as the result was beyond doubt already.

In that case, IMHO, the honourable course of action was to abstain rather than to delay the passing of a motion that already had achieved sufficient votes to pass while I researched the background. YMMV.

That example makes perfect sense and I thank you.

I'll give an example. There was recently a vote on the motion to create a Brazil forum. It had overwhelming support among TB members. I was traveling and didn't have time to research the motion quite yet. In the meanwhile, enough people voted to pass the motion to render my vote irrelevant. I then got involved with flight delays and misconnects that delayed my return by 2 additional days. Instead of delaying my vote and the final results, I voted to abstain as the result was beyond doubt already.

In that case, IMHO, the honourable course of action was to abstain rather than to delay the passing of a motion that already had achieved sufficient votes to pass while I researched the background. YMMV.

FWIW sounds more like a excuse than an explanation. FTers understand TBers travel and that's why the voting window is open for weeks but it isn't honourable IMHO to simply shrug and say it was already decided so there was no real need to vote as I believe that to be taking the role less seriously that it deserves.

FWIW sounds more like a excuse than an explanation. FTers understand TBers travel and that's why the voting window is open for weeks but it isn't honourable IMHO to simply shrug and say it was already decided so there was no real need to vote as I believe that to be taking the role less seriously that it deserves.

As I said YMMV. :)

Every individual has a different set of values and criteria for decision making. This was how mine played out in this circumstance. Some may agree with my thought process, others may not. After reading all the arguments for the forum, I am now well enough informed to vote "yes" today. However, the motion has already passed and the forum is up and running today. How would my delaying things for an extra week have helped anything? 9-0 and 8-0-1 had the same practical result, except that the membership benefited from an extra week of using the Brazil forum. That, IMHO, is a net positive.

Of course, if you believe that philosophy, perhaps you should motion that votes be closed after they have enough votes to pass... no need to wait for everyone... :D

How would my delaying things for an extra week have helped anything?

To answer a question with a question, what would it have hurt? The voting was open for a long enough period and clearly announced that nobody would've begrudged you completing your travels and taking the proper time to come to a decision and vote on the motion at hand. With due respect all I am hearing is rationalizations and excuses.

FWIW I was the one on another recent thread that spoke for TBers using the abstention for unusual life circumstances and once on rare occasions I could understand but five times in 2010 is beyond what I think reasonable for a TB member to purposely chose to abstain from voting. Quite obvious my mileage does vary.

I have thought of a new approach to this issue that might satisfy a supermajority. I have posted it as a new thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1173828-another-way-resolve-abstain-conundrum.html#post15682905).