Motion Passed: "Amend TalkBoard Guidelines: Requirements for Motions to Pass"
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 10,515
5-2-2 isn't a 70% "Yes"vote - its 5 selecting yes & 4 not selecting yes. 5/9 = 55.5%, not 70%
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,185
#49
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: up front or in a suite!!!!
Programs: all the big ones.. no LCCs for me
Posts: 1,064
blah blah blah
if you want to be a talkboard member, then vote
dont be a pansy and "abstain"
i hope this measure passes
if you want to be a talkboard member, then vote
dont be a pansy and "abstain"
i hope this measure passes
#50
Ambassador, New England
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maineiac, USA
Programs: Amtrak, WN RR, Choice
Posts: 2,655
"...it's a good thing that we operate under a relaxed version of RRoO then..."
Is that in the TB guidelines that you're supposed to operate under a relaxed version? It looks like quite the opposite to me according to the wording that's there. YMMV
Is that in the TB guidelines that you're supposed to operate under a relaxed version? It looks like quite the opposite to me according to the wording that's there. YMMV
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,185
But we run contrary to that. We currently allow TalkBoard members to vote a "coward's no"--abstaining and allowing the measure to fail without having to explain their "no" vote. What's worse is that the vast majority of people would see the abstention and assume it didn't have an impact on the vote, so it's a hidden coward's no--one that the TalkBoard member will most likely get away with.
That just seems wrong and misleading on a gut level to me.
#52
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,866
When people see that someone abstains, it's fair to expect them to expect that to mean that the person did not have influence over the decision, since that is the case in most any other case.
But we run contrary to that. We currently allow TalkBoard members to vote a "coward's no"--abstaining and allowing the measure to fail without having to explain their "no" vote. What's worse is that the vast majority of people would see the abstention and assume it didn't have an impact on the vote, so it's a hidden coward's no--one that the TalkBoard member will most likely get away with.
That just seems wrong and misleading on a gut level to me.
But we run contrary to that. We currently allow TalkBoard members to vote a "coward's no"--abstaining and allowing the measure to fail without having to explain their "no" vote. What's worse is that the vast majority of people would see the abstention and assume it didn't have an impact on the vote, so it's a hidden coward's no--one that the TalkBoard member will most likely get away with.
That just seems wrong and misleading on a gut level to me.
Imho, the only reason there should be an abstain vote is if there is some sort of conflict of interest but that in its own right leads me to believe that the TB member may/may not be the right person/qualified to be on TB due to the conflict of interest (but that's another topic for another day)
#53
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
So, after a lot of thinking on this one, I think I'm going to vote against it.
The reason I'm not supportive of it is becaue of the 5-2-2 factor. If 2 people are voting no & 2 people who are participating can't commit to a yes vote, then I don't think a motion should pass.
It should take a solid commitment to change FlyerTalk.
The reason I'm not supportive of it is becaue of the 5-2-2 factor. If 2 people are voting no & 2 people who are participating can't commit to a yes vote, then I don't think a motion should pass.
It should take a solid commitment to change FlyerTalk.
Every single board I sit on (or have audited, for that matter) has a rule that members in a conflict of interest must abstain; they do vary on whether or not a conflicted member may participate in the discussion leading up to the vote.
#54
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,585
Motion passes 7-2
On 8 August 2011 the TalkBoard passed 7-2:
Moved by nsx and seconded by jackal:
Voting yes: Cholula, jackal, lucky9876coins, nsx, SkiAdcock, Spiff, UA_Flyer
Voting no: bhatnasx, Markie
Moved by nsx and seconded by jackal:
The TalkBoard Guidelines have been interpreted to treat the Abstain option as a vote, which makes it the functional equivalent of a No vote. This treatment departs from Robert's Rules of Order:
Therefore the TalkBoard recommends that the TalkBoard Guidelines be modified as follows to conform to standard terminology. Under this modification, a proposal will win approval with 2/3 of the yes or no votes but no less than a majority of the full TalkBoard membership. For example, a vote of 5 yes, 2 no, and 2 present but abstain would fail under the current interpretation but succeed under this proposal:
The phrase "abstention votes" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an "abstention vote."
In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a "no" vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote.
Some posters on TalkBoard Topics have argued that the current "participating in" wording is ambiguous, and one could imagine that a future President of the TalkBoard might attempt to apply a different interpretation. Previous TalkBoards have been unable to achieve a 2/3 vote for any clarification.In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a "no" vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote.
Therefore the TalkBoard recommends that the TalkBoard Guidelines be modified as follows to conform to standard terminology. Under this modification, a proposal will win approval with 2/3 of the yes or no votes but no less than a majority of the full TalkBoard membership. For example, a vote of 5 yes, 2 no, and 2 present but abstain would fail under the current interpretation but succeed under this proposal:
Section 4, paragraph C, sub-paragraphs ii, v, vi(b), and vii are replaced with the following text:
ii. TalkBoard members may register their selection of yes, no or present but abstain while the voting period is open.
v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final.
vi.
b. all TalkBoard members have registered their selections.
vii. A motion shall pass if at least two-thirds of the yes or no votes cast by TalkBoard members are yes and a majority of the total TalkBoard membership votes 'yes.'
ii. TalkBoard members may register their selection of yes, no or present but abstain while the voting period is open.
v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final.
vi.
b. all TalkBoard members have registered their selections.
vii. A motion shall pass if at least two-thirds of the yes or no votes cast by TalkBoard members are yes and a majority of the total TalkBoard membership votes 'yes.'
Voting no: bhatnasx, Markie
#55
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in PALMYRA, PA, USA
Posts: 58,512
#56
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,585
It sounds silly, but this issue was the one that prompted me to run for TalkBoard. I couldn't see the sense of the soft no, and a majority of the TB favored fixing it, but they never could get 6 votes to do so.
I thank bhatnasx for proposing the public announcements that really energized the discussion, making the arguments, showing support, and most of all encouraging TalkBoard members to re-think the issue. I have learned that sometimes we need a live proposal to promote discussion if the issue is complex.
I believe the new rule will be stable and that we will see very few Abstains from now on.
I thank bhatnasx for proposing the public announcements that really energized the discussion, making the arguments, showing support, and most of all encouraging TalkBoard members to re-think the issue. I have learned that sometimes we need a live proposal to promote discussion if the issue is complex.
I believe the new rule will be stable and that we will see very few Abstains from now on.
#57
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in PALMYRA, PA, USA
Posts: 58,512
That may increase comity, but it's at the expense of finding out how our TB members actually stand on issues until there is consensus.
And while it's safe and easy to quietly oppose something in the private TB forum, it is another to have to vote against it.
More motions, please! ^
#58
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,585
Interestingly, the public announcement change prompted my conversion. I did not want to waste the screen space of every FT'er for a minor issue like this. Once the OMNI counting vote was announced, I could piggyback this one with no further loss of screen space to anyone. I estimated that there were 6 votes, but as it turned out one of those 6 voted no and two of the expected no's voted yes after thinking it over. This has really opened my eyes, koko.
Back on topic, I am gratified that one of the No voters felt the proposal went too far and the other felt it did not go far enough. I think we achieved the ideal of consensus in the end.
#59
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,866
#60
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,185
Quite happy to see this succeed as well!