Motion Passed: "Amend TalkBoard Guidelines: Requirements for Motions to Pass"
#1
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: 21,648
Motion Passed: "Amend TalkBoard Guidelines: Requirements for Motions to Pass"
Moved by nsx and seconded by jackal:
This vote will close on August 8, 11 at 9:27 PM Pacific Time or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.
Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:
The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.
Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback in this thread.
A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote yes.
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.'
This vote will close on August 8, 11 at 9:27 PM Pacific Time or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.
Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:
The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.
Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback in this thread.
A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote yes.
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 10,515
I'm planning on voting against this motion.
I think FlyerTalk is generally a wonderful place and that it should require 2/3rds of the peope participating (whether it be yes, no, abstain) to vote yes to change it. So, an abstain is effectively a no, albeit the "coward's no" as some have come to refer to it. If someone believes in change, then vote for the motion. If not, then vote no. I think that an abstain is a "coward's" no - but I'd rather it be a coward's no than a cowards's yes when it comes to changing something on FlyerTalk.
If true reform is needed, let's just get rid of abstain...although I don't think reform is needed in this matter.
I think FlyerTalk is generally a wonderful place and that it should require 2/3rds of the peope participating (whether it be yes, no, abstain) to vote yes to change it. So, an abstain is effectively a no, albeit the "coward's no" as some have come to refer to it. If someone believes in change, then vote for the motion. If not, then vote no. I think that an abstain is a "coward's" no - but I'd rather it be a coward's no than a cowards's yes when it comes to changing something on FlyerTalk.
If true reform is needed, let's just get rid of abstain...although I don't think reform is needed in this matter.
#3
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: 21,648
If you favor elimination of the Abstain option you must admit that this proposal takes you part of the way to your goal. Again, it merely makes abstention count as if you didn't vote, which comports with common sense. Unlike the status quo.
Furthermore this proposal adds a protection against votes in which a significant number of TB members are absent. Currently a 4-2 vote with 3 non-voters would pass.
I submit that this proposal is an improvement in both these respects.
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 10,515
Ok - I was misunderstanding things...
So, is the only real change that a 5-2-2 would count, whereas previously it wouldn't?
I still think that if 2 are "on the fence" or choosing not to vote positively for something, then it may not be something that's worth passing.
Gotta think on it more...
So, is the only real change that a 5-2-2 would count, whereas previously it wouldn't?
I still think that if 2 are "on the fence" or choosing not to vote positively for something, then it may not be something that's worth passing.
Gotta think on it more...
Last edited by bhatnasx; Jul 26, 2011 at 3:45 pm
#5
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: 21,648
A 4-2, with 3 people would not pass in the either scenario.
#6
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: 21,648
However the proposal also adds a safety net to prevent absurdities like passing a 2-1 vote when the other 6 were somehow totally absent.
#7
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: 21,648
Reasonable people disagree on whether a 5-2-2 vote should pass.
However I expect Abstain votes to become much less common if this proposal passes. Deprived of the option to vote "Soft No", TalkBoard members who are on the fence or who do not want to take the time to study the issue might step up and vote plain old "No". Reducing the number of abstentions is another benefit of this change, IMHO.
I predict that this change will completely eliminate instances of more than one abstention unless the abstentions are for conflict of interest reasons.
However I expect Abstain votes to become much less common if this proposal passes. Deprived of the option to vote "Soft No", TalkBoard members who are on the fence or who do not want to take the time to study the issue might step up and vote plain old "No". Reducing the number of abstentions is another benefit of this change, IMHO.
I predict that this change will completely eliminate instances of more than one abstention unless the abstentions are for conflict of interest reasons.
#8
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,466
A sensible compromise IMHO to more clearly define the TB Guidelines.
FWIW I was one who believed under the old fuzzy wording that casting an abstention constituted particpation in the ballot and as such absentions had to be counted in the majority. This rewording take away that ambiguity and so gets a ^ from this pedantic poster.
FWIW I was one who believed under the old fuzzy wording that casting an abstention constituted particpation in the ballot and as such absentions had to be counted in the majority. This rewording take away that ambiguity and so gets a ^ from this pedantic poster.
#9
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
However I expect Abstain votes to become much less common if this proposal passes. Deprived of the option to vote "Soft No", TalkBoard members who are on the fence or who do not want to take the time to study the issue might step up and vote plain old "No". Reducing the number of abstentions is another benefit of this change, IMHO.
I predict that this change will completely eliminate instances of more than one abstention unless the abstentions are for conflict of interest reasons.
I predict that this change will completely eliminate instances of more than one abstention unless the abstentions are for conflict of interest reasons.
Also, using the abstain as a shielded 'no' vote is BS, and I'm glad this would be curtailed as well under the change. Don't want to take a side? Don't run for this, or any other, office.
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,466
The next best thing IMHO would be to limit the number of abstentions each member can make per term.
#11
Moderator: Hyatt Gold Passport & Star Alliance
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London, UK
Programs: UA-1K 3MM/HY- LT Globalist/BA-GGL/GfL
Posts: 12,122
While I do see their purpose ultimately I'd like to see the abstention option done away with altogether as I also think TBers should be expected to form an opinion in the months most topics are tossed around and the weeks a ballot is open once a motion is made and seconded.
The next best thing IMHO would be to limit the number of abstentions each member can make per term.
The next best thing IMHO would be to limit the number of abstentions each member can make per term.
#12
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,949
This returns the situation to where it was previously. It had been "changed" when the Guidelines were rewritten but, according to what Kokonutz (who wrote them) it was never his intention that this change take place. That was the interepretation given to it by Gleff, who was TB President at the time.
To be clear, let me give all the possibilities and the results if this passes:
6 people vote "yes" -- the motion will pass under all circumstances.
5 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 2 or more abstain or do not participate.
4 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 3 or more abstain or do not particpate.
3 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 5 or more abstain or do not participate.
2 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 6 or more abstain or do not participate.
1 person votes "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless every other member of TalkBoard abstains or does not participate.
In real life, I only see this as having an impact when 5 vote yes and two or more abstain/don't participate and even that will be very rare.
To be clear, let me give all the possibilities and the results if this passes:
6 people vote "yes" -- the motion will pass under all circumstances.
5 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 2 or more abstain or do not participate.
4 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 3 or more abstain or do not particpate.
3 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 5 or more abstain or do not participate.
2 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 6 or more abstain or do not participate.
1 person votes "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless every other member of TalkBoard abstains or does not participate.
In real life, I only see this as having an impact when 5 vote yes and two or more abstain/don't participate and even that will be very rare.
#13
Ambassador, New England
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maineiac, USA
Programs: Amtrak, WN RR, Choice
Posts: 2,655
Dovster, I think you're forgetting that part of this new motion is this:
So your 4 yes, 3 yes, 2 yes, and 1 yes examples would NEVER pass if these rules are adopted.
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
#14
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,949
#15
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
I thank nsx and jackal for following up on this issue. I urge the TB to vote Yes on this motion, as it clarifies ambiguous language and reverts the regulations to their intended interpretation.
I have not seen a convincing argument for why this motion should not be passed.
I have not seen a convincing argument for why this motion should not be passed.