Canarsie

I strongly believe that too, as voting on recommendations to represent FlyerTalk members is the main purpose of being a voluntary elected member of TalkBoard.

MSPeconomist

The problem with trying to require that TB members post the reason(s) for their vote is that someone who didn't want to do so could just post nonsense: asdfghjkl.

nsx

We're only kinder and gentler in public. In private, it's the same old you-know-what.

SkiAdcock

Let's not come up w/ fanciful scenarios. I seriously doubt a TB member would post gibberish as a response. And it goes w/o saying that if s/he did, FTers would ask for more details and/or not vote for him/her in the next election.

Cheers.

MSPeconomist

Yet this discussion has been initiated because someone has not been responsive about posting the reasons for his vote. If the person were determined not to give reasons but there were a requirement to do so, there could be a post made that would be completely uninformative or the person might simply lie. It would be hard to write a rule to preclude these situations and force someone to genuinely disclose the reasons for a vote if the person doesn't want to do this.

SkiAdcock

Sorry, I don't believe in black helicopters. I would be stunned if a TB member posted gibberish (which was your initial post, although you've tried to move the game post) & think you do a disservice to your fellow (and future) TB members to suggest something like that.

I would also say you're doing a bit of pot kettle black w/ your post which I'm quoting, so you might not want to re-open that can of worms

Anyway, we on TB can discuss whether to change the guidelines re: responding to FTers when asked for our rationale for voting yes/no/abstain or did not vote. But that's a different thread & not related to Avianca.

I'm probably going to introduce a thread re: the responding to FTers when asked for rationale for voting yes/no/abstain or did not vote. It won't be immediately as I'm starting into a busy period for work, but it won't be end of year either & then we can discuss it more in that thread. FWIW - I think FTers will be supportive of the change, but realize there are pros/cons. Again, it can be discussed when I start the thread(s)/discussion both private/public TB forums. As everyone knows (who has followed TB over the years) I strongly believe in accountability to our FT constituents. And I've listened to FTers' frustrations over the years when individual TB members are asked & don't explain their votes, but hide behind the are not required to post publicly rule.

Cheers.

lin821

(bolding mine)

This.

Thank you.

MSPeconomist

Note that SkiAdcock is the one who brought up the issue of possibly changing thee TB guidelines in this thread, in post #30. It seems disingenuous to then say later that "that's a different tread & not related to Avinaca."

SkiAdcock

Guess you missed the part where I was replying to EastBay1K. Of course what's also a bit disingenuous is your subsequent posting to my post that TB members might lie and/or post gibberish. Look forward to discussing it in the appropriate, separate thread when it's started, which I noted (correctly) in my last post isn't this thread - and by creating a separate thread allows FTers an opportunity who come across this thread to read about Avianca.

There really isn't much discussion at this point re: the actual topic, which was a very simple name change, but the info is there for FTers in either Avianca thread if they're interested in Avianca. The name change has been implemented by the CommunityDirector

Cheers.

Eastbay1K

As the person who initially brought this up,
(1) It would be stupid to force a rule, but
(2) It is helpful for an elected abstainer to have the common decency to explain; and,
(3) Most of us would have our BS-O-meters going off if someone made up a load of poopoodoodookaka. (I'm not sure if it is BS-O-meter or BS-O-Meter - I do not want to get it wrong.)

mia

I do not think this is important unless an additional vote could change the outcome. If I have wrapped my head around Talkboard's decision making rule this would only occur if the vote is 5-3. In that circumstance the motion fails because 5 is not two-thirds of 8, while 6-3 would pass.

rwoman

Hi all,

As someone who missed a vote early on in my TB tenure...

I think it's important to keep in mind those who miss a vote do so for a wide variety of reasons. It is up to the individual TB member to choose (or not) to disclose why they missed a vote.

In my case, I really just flat out missed it. I posted both in the public and private TB forums after the vote closed and I realized what I failed to do. I did so because, for me, I felt it was the right thing to do.

Everyone has their reasons for the choices they make and nobody is perfect.

Eastbay1K

That is correct. But you missed a vote in the real sense.

It is also important to keep in mind that the constituency of an elected body has the right to know why a member of said body missed a vote, especially when abstention is an option. After all, it could be anything from "I slept in," The cat ate my ballot," "It was hours right before my third trimester began and I had to get to the appointment," or simply "I forgot." Sometimes silence isn't golden.

rwoman

Totally agree.

JDiver

Speaking for myself as a member and former military service person operating under security clearance restrictions, I know rwoman is a military service person with significant and at least reserve obligations. I doubt she is free to reveal every detail of occasional duty related absences. Sometimes silence is a requirement.