tcook052

It wasn't as much of a "problem" as a clash of personalities in a previous TB and a convenient fix at that time. The requirement to wait until the end of the voting period to announce motion adoption or defeat had been around AFAIK since TB Guidelines were created and didn't seem to be a "problem" in past TB's.

kokonutz

I feel like I have explained this several times. I will try once more:

Every vote matters because TB members can stand for re-election. And in doing so one thing that posters use to measure whether a TB member is worthy of re-election is how they voted on the issues that matter to them.

If you refuse to vote then you create no voting record and posters have no way to judge your performance as a TB member.

If you do not intend to stand for re-election or (as I was) you are term limited out in your current term then sure, be lazy and don't vote or just vote abstain every time you don't get a vote in before it gets to 6 yeses or 4 nos and no harm no foul.

But the system exists to benefit the posters (who might otherwise continue to lobby and debate over a matter that has been long decided- cruel), not to benefit the TB (who might feel that their vote 'doesn't count' because it was made after the 6 or 4 is achieved). As it should.

kokonutz

Be careful what you hope for.

SkiAdcock

While the announcement at the end of the voting period was in the original guidelines created 8 years ago, it was changed 4+ years ago when one TB member, who was not happy about term limits being enacted, decided to delay every single vote to the 14th day even when the other 8 votes were in. FTers continued posting/lobbying/debating over a matter that had already been decided, which was not fair to them - and in the case of some of the items being voted on, delayed implementation, also not fair.

Last year when a similar situation occurred with a different TB member often waiting until the 14th day when the other votes were in/they could have voted, a motion was made that if something passed while voting was still open (such as a new forum) that the CommunityDirector no longer had to wait until the 14th day, but could between when it passed & the 14th day, create the forum, change the name, etc. Again, it was felt that it wasn't fair to FTers to make them wait (and dchristiva voted yes on that vote btw).

There has been no negative input by FTers to either change in the guidelines; in fact, the opposite, both since 4 years ago & last year. The only one who has expressed a disagreement w/ the first change is dchristiva, and that's 18 months after his term started & only after he missed a vote.

As koko has stated, votes do matter/help FTers to make decisions wrt TB elections/who they vote for when they see voting records.

Cheers.

Eastbay1K

Agreed, but more importantly, FTers shouldn't have to essentially waste their time furthering arguments in favor of their respective positions when the ultimate result is in.

MSPeconomist

The time at which various TB members vote is information from the private TB forum that should not be "published" in the public TBT forum without permission, but since you've mentioned this, I should point
out that there were three YES votes before the public announcement of the motion and a couple others voted shortly after the announcement.

IMO it's rude and disrespectful not to let FT members have the opportunity to comment on the formal
motion before TB members vote. This is why the TB guidelines now mandate the public announcement period of at least 48 hours before voting opens on TB motions, but that procedure wasn't followed here.

The TB guidelines should be followed consistently all the time.

CMK10

Please cite where it's understood that the time at which various TB members vote is information that shouldn't be published. Especially as, I did not say when people voted minus the date the motion had enough votes to carry (which is public record) and when the last votes were recorded which is again public record.

Furthermore, everyone is already aware of the second part of your statement (the procedure not being followed) because you've already brought it up and the parties responsible already admitted their mistakes and apologized publicly. I'm not sure why you're mentioning it again.

MSPeconomist

Isn't it a TB responsibility to allow for comments after a motion has been publicly announced before definitely deciding how to vote?

CMK10

No one is disputing this, the issue is that a TB member has decided that once a motion has passed his vote "doesn't count" (a fundamentally incorrect statement) and therefore won't vote. It's great that people take the time to weigh their options and input and vote accordingly, but refusing to vote because you don't like the system is an entirely different matter.

kipper

It matters quite a bit. When there was the debate about posts in OMNI counting or not, TalkBoard voted and opted not to count OMNI posts. IIRC, in the following election, several people campaigned on changing that to allow OMNI posts to count. For those on either side of the matter, it was helpful to know where those TalkBoard members who were up for reelection stood.

SkiAdcock

Not to get into a public pissing war, but since you brought it up we now have to deal w/ it. You made a big deal about 1 (just 1) TB member voting before the public announcement went up. Once you did that, other TB members (including myself) didn't vote until 48 hours+ after the announcement because of your comment. We even stated that we were going to wait. So your comment that 3 voted before the public announcement is incorrect. Obviously FTers wouldn't know, but TB members would. I checked each day so I know when other TB members voted.

I even waited 3 more days than I would have to vote in case there was input against the new forum simply because of your bringing up the wrong 48 hour delay. But there wasn't. This new forum had 100% FTers support.

More importantly, you have zero stone to stand on re: private TB info being published because YOU were the first person who posted (again, publicly not privately, as done in the past) that a TB member voted before the announcement went up, so quite frankly YOU were the first person to publish a private timeline 'w/o permission' in the public forum.

It was acknowledged previously in the appropriate thread that there was a screw-up because TB waited for 48 hours in the private forum before voting (so there was actually a 48 hour delay, just on the wrong side), forgetting that the 48 was supposed to start after the announcement. That mistake was acknowledged in the appropriate private & public threads w/ blame being accepted by the appropriate folk, yet you continue to complain about it. Again publicly - not privately. You're not 'walking your talk'.

In fairness to MSP, we're only allowed to post how we've voted/our actions & nothing about others. You're correct that technically timeines etc w/o identifying info is not prohibited, but it's not normally done. However, as noted above, while MSP chastises others, she's guilty of the very action she's chastising them about. Absolutely no one in the public forum would have known one TB member voted before the public announcement if she hadn't posted it herself in the public forum.

As you note, once it was brought up, all parties who jumped the gun apologized & took responsibility. It is interesting that FTers themselves didn't have a problem w/ it & even chastised TB over bickering about it.

FWIW - my guess is they'd say, given the forum has already been created & is thriving, why are you still boring us w/ the internal politics. We don't care.

As both a regular FTer & a TB member, I agree 100%.

Cheers.

Kagehitokiri

the 'point' of this (thread's topic) seems fairly clear

if vote gets 6 immediately, it avoids 2 week wait

voters can decide whether they care (or dont care) re abstentions
and TB members can decide what they post re their votes/etc

Dovster

Ah, yes. Nothing has changed since I first posted this 13 years ago --especially the part I am now putting in bold-face:

RichMSN

TalkBoard decided there would be a waiting period. I was a TalkBoard member before this policy was in place -- and on motions I personally made or seconded, I would vote immediately upon posting of the poll.

Kagehitokiri

how often is there an announcement thread before a discussion thread ?