Question 14: Supporting No Hope Motions
 

submitted by Jenbel
Do you think it's a good or bad thing to move or second a motion which you know has no hope of passing?

I would generally not do such a thing unless I wanted to put such a motion to bed, so to speak. We've voted to table a motion in the past and that's one way of saying, "we've discussed it, we're not interested, let's move on."

Seconding a motion that I am going to vote no on is another way of saying "we acknowledge that some people support such a motion but it is not in the best interest of FlyerTalk."

Either way, it would and has been a pretty rare event for me to motion or second a piece of legislation I will be voting no on.

It all depends on whether or not I believe in the concept. If its something that I believe in & something that I feel is in the best interest of FlyerTalk & its members, I would make a motion to support it - or second it.

That said, I would normally gauge the folks in the public & private forum first - before going forward. I would more than likely not move or second a motion I would vote No on - unless my mind is significantly changed within the 2 week debate period - which could happen as I'm a relatively open-minded guy.

It. Depends.

As a FT member and voter and person who follows the TalkBoard, I would like to see things voted on when there is a groundswell of support in the public forum and the motion isn't complicated (example of complicated: TB Guidelines).

In those cases, even when it's been discussed and it's clear it won't pass based on talks in the private forum, I think it's useful to put the motion up and second it for a vote.

In more complicated cases, I think it's more useful to build consensus, revise a motion if necessary, and put up a motion that 2/3 of the TB can agree with.

I would not hesitate to make a motion and vote no after careful consideration. I do not believe a motion is a sign I am *for* something, just a sign that I believe it deserves to have its day. I would prefer someone who does support it move or second, but if they don't, I would.

This is not an easy question to answer but I will attempt to do the best I can.

Unless I feel very strongly about an issue, I'm would not introduce or second a motion that is not likely to pass. However, there are some issues that I feel strongly enough about that I would introduce or second the motion on. There are some issues that should go on record.

Also, I don't think that I would introduce or second a motion on that I do not intend to support. I would not as a practice vote on a motion until near the close of the voting unless I know that I would not be available to vote close to the end since there could be information introduced in the debate (both public and private) that could change my mind.

One should always feel free to propose or second or vote any motion according to one's conscience.

The views of a minority should never be stifled simply because the views of the majority are more likely to prevail.

Like others, I make a distinction.
 

I would generally not move or second a motion that I intend to vote no on. I say "generally" because ...well, anything can happen.

However I can imagine a situation where I move or second a motion I feel strongly needs to be aired, discussed, or otherwise brought to light, whether from personal preference or members input. I think that's an important role TB members play in bringing the members wishes to the forefront.

That said, if I was absolutely sure a measure was not going to pass, and I had no strong feelings about it, and no members had been active in expressing a desire to see it live, I would let it go.

As an aside, which I will also likely cover in the "building consensus" question - I'm not big on secret alliances or politicking more than making my stands known and listening to others thoughts on the matter. One thing I can promise is that TB and other members will always know where I stand on issues that come before FT and the TB, and that I'm not likely to engage in "Survivor"-type alliances to get things done. I want to talk and listen and have decisions be as out in the open as possible.
(Which is more a general comment about my process than anything to do with the current TB)

There are more implications to something like this than just the vote at that particular moment.

For example, if there's some kind of precedent on a topic, I would like to know what the history was on the issue; how it was voted on previously and discuss reasoning with the TalkBoard members as to why they voted the way they did.

I would hope that future TalkBoard members would do the same. Ergo, voting on such issues would be important.

What a strange and very loaded question Jenbel, have I missed something? Hmmmm.

Why would I think it has no hope of passing? That would indicate the decision has been taken prior to any voting, so that would not be a good thing at all.

I dont think its a good or bad thing, I would do the right thing...

It's a bad thing, destructive and divisive.

I cannot image a circumstance in which a futile proposal would improve the atmosphere on the TalkBoard or make it more likely for the proposal to pass in the future. The opposite will happen: bad feelings and entrenchment of the opposition.

IMHO, there is only one reason for a "no hope" proposal: to play to the voters. We see this in politics all the time. One side makes a doomed extremist proposal and tells the voters: "If you elect more of us next time so that the other side can't stop us, this is what we'll give you."

I categorically reject this sort of political game-playing. I don't believe that it has any place anywhere on FT. Furthermore if I were Randy and the TalkBoard became such a place, I would eliminate it.

Please help take the politics out of the TalkBoard by not voting for candidates who will behave like politicians. Instead, look at Question 13 and vote for consensus builders.

It's very hard to discuss this question in the abstract. The purpose of TalkBoard is to provide guidance and recommendations to Randy. In that respect, any information for Randy is good information and a "symbolic" vote provides him input for consideration. It depends, however, entirely on the subject matter of the motion in question. For some, a symbolic vote might be appropriate. For others, it's simply a waste of TalkBoard time and resources.

OK, I'll bite. Since most of the candidates believe it can be a good idea to put forth a motion that has no hope of passing, can someone please post some examples?

In the absence of a public read-only version of the private board, the only way to communicate that a motion has been considered is by a vote. No matter how many times it is said, it is NOT political game-playing to expect an elected representative to commit, via a vote how he or she feels about something brought forth by a member. And some disagreement on the TalkBoard is healthy -- how else is a true consensus driven?

I would not shy away from a vote. I pledge that I will not abstain from a single vote should I be elected (provided I am not incapacitated) and would not try to keep a topic from being brought to a vote once all possible attempts at forming a consensus are made.

RichMSN, thanks for your post. I hope there is a way around this.

For example, couldn't a TB member just post a proposal for discussion in the public forum, then discuss it in the private forum, then post in the public forum that support appears insufficient to proceed?

I understand a rule against sharing the contents of private forum discussions, but isn't it OK to share the mere fact that the discussions of a particular issue have occurred? If not, I'll start a list of things to fix and put this on it...

Preceding the formal proposal with a discussion of a draft proposal in the public forum should be the norm. That process will show everyone whether the proposal has overwhelming support or whether there is substantial opposition. In the latter case, I can understand that proponents would want to publicly identify opponents on the TB, so that voters would know who to vote against next time. But you have to admit, this makes holding a vote a very political act.

To the extent that this limitation is real and is not repaired, and to the extent that posting a draft for public comment does not provide sufficient information, I accept your point that making a "no hope" motion can serve as a communication tool. But it's communicating political information. I doubt that the value of this communication would outweigh the damage to the TB's collegiality.

Why am I so hung up about politicization of the TalkBoard? Because politicians work to defeat their opponents. Committee members work as a team. The TalkBoard needs to be more of a committee and less political.

To the voters, I say: If you believe that the TalkBoard should be first and foremost about winning on your issue, I would prefer that you not vote at all or at least that you not vote for me. Because I don't want to be on that kind of TalkBoard. I want a TalkBoard made of team players who know how to cooperate to get things done.

Having an election, by its very nature, makes the TalkBoard a "political" body. It's not a dirty word. It is what it is.

One of the really nice things bdjohns1 did recently was put together a spreadsheet showing how all the TB members voted in the last two years. I believe in as much consensus building as possible, but I do believe that one of two things should happen when TB discusses something:

(1) TB builds a consensus. A motion is made, second, passes.
(2) TB is unable to build a consensus. At this point, either TB needs to work harder to actually or someone needs to run the closest thing to a consensus up the flagpole so FT members can evaluate the TB members and the job TB is doing as a whole.

I believe your solution (private debate, public mention that "TB has failed to reach a consensus") shields TB members from having to take a potentially unpopular stand on something. And I think that at the end of two years on TB, our members deserve more when it's time to try to figure out who to vote for.

More food for thought. This is great!

You are correct about this, and it's a disadvantage I had not considered, perhaps because I never thought we would want to shield our actions or inaction from the voters. But the effect is to shield, as you say.

I was hoping that consensus could become the norm of operation, based on the reasonable premise that all TalkBoard members want what's best for FT. Yet If one faction of voters firmly believes that policy A will add value to FT and the other faction firmly believes that policy A will subtract value, the debate can only be settled politically.

That's exactly when Randy will probably step in and decide the issue. Because as I see it, the TalkBoard is a tool for Randy to gather information on what the members want, and especially to raise issues that Randy may have overlooked. If the TalkBoard reaches a consensus, Randy can be pretty sure that the consensus is a reasonable approximation of what the members want. If the TalkBoard is split, e.g. if a question becomes a campaign issue, the non-consensus result proves virtually nothing about what the membership at large feels.

In order to survive in the long run, the TalkBoard needs to provide value to Randy. To the extent the TalkBoard acts politically, it reduces its value as an advisory panel and makes itself irrelevant.

So how _do_ we avoid a slide into full-blown politics on the TalkBoard? Is such a slide inevitable for any elected body?

To answer your first question - this happens quite regularly. Usually though, its the members that bring up the proposal for discussion, the TB discusses it in private while the public debate is going on, and then, if enough (2) TB members feel like they put a motion together & second it, then it goes to vote. If not, then it fades away. I think it'd probably be better for the membership if it doesn't fade away, but that seems to be how things go.

To answer your second question, any TB member can quote themselves or say anything they want to about any subject (as long as it doesn't break the privacy policy of the TB). So, for sake of argument, if I was bringing up the idea of a Men's Travel Forum in the private forum and wanted to gather member feedback, I could start a thread that states that I have an idea that I've brought to the TB's attention & am looking for member feedback on that idea.

depends

If a non-TB member proposes something in TB that needs a 'sponsor' to get an airing then I would be happy to propose/second that. After all the issue is important enough to the OP for them to find a way to air it.

There are always ways of "compliment things out of the door" so to say.

I personally do not believe in it because the members deserve honesty.

I would ask myself: Will the average FT member participate ? If I cant convince myself because the concept simply doesnt fit, I can certainly not convince others and the motion has a NO vote from my side.

A tough question, a good one, but a tough one. Certainly one that I would like to consider further.

To make a motion or to second a motion means I believe it should go for a vote. If I believe it should go for a vote, I cannot imagine ever wanting to use a vote as a way to prove to somebody that it was not a motion which the TB as a whole felt was worthy of referring to Randy for action. I would endeavor to only use the voting system for those issues I feel should pass or which I am representing a group on FT in their hope of getting it to pass. I believe that the role of the TB member is in part to act autonomously for the good of FT, but it is also to act on behalf of the members of FT who may wish to raise issues specific to them that I would not otherwise have considered.

It is in this case, i.e. recommending for a vote an issue that I had not personally initiated but was instead representing to the TB as both a TB member and as a FT membership representative, that I think the biggest challenge as a TB member comes into being.

When and how do we decide that somebody else’s idea is not good enough?

Outside of being asked to raise an issue that goes against the clear and previously discussed decisions of either Randy (or as IB if that were the case), that is hard. I can foresee some issues that would be brought to light during any open forum discussion as being not good for a vote yet or as proposed. I can however also imagine some ideas that although perhaps unpopular with some of the membership, would be best voted on to give credibility to the idea that we as TB members are there for both Randy and the FT membership.

I wouldn't personally move or second a motion I didn't support. I've seen it done in other board setting to allow discussion just amongst board members on an issue.

The other tough question!

The simple answer is that if all TB members have clearly and publically stated their position on a topic then going through the process of making a motion, getting it seconded and voting on it is pointless unless it's clearly going to pass. TalkBoard is about proving answers to the general membership and in the scenario stated the answer is there.

Things get a bit more complicated when TalkBoard simply doesn't answer the question:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=864393

OldRoyal suggested creating an Airports forum and various general members chimed in with various thoughts.... but not a public word from a TB member. The question was not answered, and I just don't see that acceptable.

I firmly pledge that I'll always be happy to give my own views on a topic including a clear answer.

Generally I'd like to see TalkBoard being more willing to vote on a motion and unless it's clearly a no-hoper I'll be happy to make an early motion for anything that I support, likewise seconding a motion. In terms of whether any motion suspequently passes then I just don't see it as important beyond that the decision is the 'right' one.

Sunshine disinfects.
 

The votes taken by TB over the past few years make it quite evident that consensus is a big part of the TalkBoard culture. While this is for the most part a very good thing, it can lead to the burying of issues and secrecy in the decision-making process.

As a TalkBoard member, I'll work to strike a balance between the two.

I think the right thing to do is to vote the way you thing - regarding the actual motion at issue - and not by trying to calculate "would it pass or not".

Such a way of voting - according do your thoughts of what the consensus is has a tendency to prevent changes - many times for the good.

A motion should be voted based on it's merits and how it can contribute to the FT community. not politics.

d.