FWIW... I think a visible abstain option should be left available for those few instances where the Talkboard member feels strongly that they should not be part of the vote, but doesn't want to hold up the voting or risk being considered a missed vote.

However, I do not believe that someone who abstains should be counted as a defacto "no" vote, and the 2/3 majority should be only counted off of those who vote yes or no.

If you remember, we had one TB member during our term that never showed up to vote for anything. I suggested that this TB member be removed, but it was never acted on.

Wait...this is still Flyertalk.com, right? Home of the wild conspiracy theory? :D

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

[email protected]

Indeed, y'all do realize that the TalkBoard assigns Starwood hotel properties to redemption categories, don't you? :D

LOL. Something I've long suspected. ;)

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

[email protected]

I think the danger with 'Abstain' is that the TB member then uses it as a "get of jail free card", meaning that they can distance themselves from every decision made by TB during their term in office. It seems to be odd that one would seek elected office and then refuse to make a decision on issues which you were elected to help decide. I've never had a problem making decisions, but perhaps I'm unusual in that.

I'd like to see the 2/3rds majority be abolished. It's frankly setting the bar too high for real change. Complaints that the TB does nothing, so often seen from the community, can in part be accounted for by the paralysis that the super majority creates. We are always acting in the most conservative, no change, way rather than being able to try a bold experiment and unpick it should it not work. It only needs two people to oppose any change for it not to pass, and that pretty much stifles any meaningful enhancements IMHO.

Disagree with this completely! :td:

In the current session alone, there have been 13 motions, 12 of which have passed with a supermajority of at least 2/3rds. In the last TB session, there were 9 motions, 7 of which passes (and one of the ones that wasn't passed was passed shortly there after after a rewording of it). I don't hear a lot of complaints that the TalkBoard is doing nothing. I actually hear the opposite, both in the public forum and via PM and email and even in person at FT events.

Sure, there are a few people that gripe, but those are the generally same people that have been griping all 7+ years that I've been on FlyerTalk - the majority of feedback I've seen is generally positive.

2/3rds majority is a supermajority and a good thing, IMHO, as the changes being discussed, sometimes are small changes, but other times significant changes and I believe it's important to have a 2/3rds majority (whether or not we're counting the abstains) to pass something and make a change to FlyerTalk.

I think you make my point for me 9 motions in 52 weeks, and 13 motions (and how many of those were wrong?) in about 30 weeks, not too impressive. I suspect the PM's I'm getting are from the people who do complain, but then we may each have a constituency which responds to our postings perhaps?

We have a very valuable forum called Budget Travel. I know you are familiar with it because not only do you have a number of posts on it, but you were also among its first moderators.

We almost did not have it. It had been suggested long before I first came on to TalkBoard. TB did not even vote on it.

When I was elected to TB, it became one of my priorities. It was not easy to get through, as witness this vote:


(One of the six who voted in favor, and I will not mention who, very often missed TB votes and I was happily surprised when he voted for this one.)

In short, the 2/3rds requirement almost killed this forum before it was born -- and it certainly delayed it for quite a bit of time.

Personally, I think FT would be poorer today if one of the "yes" votes had been against the forum -- or even abstained.

The 2/3 majority is essential because without it, a clique of moderators on TalkBoard (already holding a simple majority) would be able to push their agenda through without paying any heed to the views of the other elected members representing the general userbase.

I'd be happy to support a lowering of the 2/3rd standard to a simple majority provided TalkBoard were to amend the guidelines to ensure that the number of moderators permitted to serve concurrently as TalkBoard members did not exceed 50%.

I don't buy into the validity of your concerns regarding cliques of any kind subverting TalkBoard for their own purposes. I believe TalkBoard should be open to all who are willing to serve.

Nevertheless, I agree with preserving the supermajority of 2/3rds. :)

A recent quote pretty much sums up how I feel about such a proposal:

I don't feel it's within the spirit of FT to treat Moderators differently than anyone else when it comes to allowing TB participation.

On the other hand, there is the question of diversity.

When I joined FT there was a rule that at least two members of TB had to live outside of the US/Canada. Of course, this was very helpful to non-North American candidates. You could come in 12th in the election but as long as there was a non-US spot open, you were elected.

I opposed that rule (yes, I realize that it would work in my benefit) and tried to get it changed. My motion did not pass: 5 voted in favor of it, 3 against, and 1 abstained.

Randy, however, stepped in and adopted my motion even though it failed. He said that the 2 spots had been reserved for foreign residents when almost all members lived in the US/Canada. It was felt at the time that diversity on TB was crucial to FT's success. Since then, however, TB had become a truly international IBB -- as evidenced by the fact that 3 of the 9 members elected lived overseas.

There remains, however, a situation where moderators are over-represented on TB by a tremendous proportion. Whereas they represent less than 0.01% of the general membership, they often form a majority of TB membership.

That definitely is not the diversity which Randy had originally sought.

So do I. However, I would prefer that moderators take a sabbatical from their other duties during the period that they serve their elected terms on TalkBoard.

I have nothing against the people who are moderators, but I am simply not comfortable with people wearing many hats, especially when a sizeable number of other users are also volunteering to serve the community.

I don't think you can quantify the success of the TalkBoard by a number of motions - rather by the quality of the end result.

Agree. While I might not agree w/ all of TB decisions, I've never gotten the impression that there were cliques subverting TB for their own purposes. I do see, however, some folk who are anti-mod usually doing their thing & suggesting otherwise. That's been pretty consistent over the years. As a regular FTer I have no problem w/ a TB member also being a mod.

Cheers.