par·tic·i·pate (pär-ts-pt)
v. par·tic·i·pat·ed, par·tic·i·pat·ing, par·tic·i·pates
v.intr.
1. To take part in something: participated in the festivities.
2. To share in something: If only I could participate in your good fortune.

***

When someone chooses to abstain, they have participated in the vote. The choices were Yes, No, or Abstain. In a similar example, if someone is asked to vote on whether they would prefer White, Wheat, or Neither for their sandwich, they'd be participating in the process by choosing one of the 3 options. It doesn't matter what the options are. It only matters whether they took part in the process.

I think the TalkBoard needs to decide how we want to count abstentions, then clarify the Guideline wording to make this decision unambiguous. I'm open to persuasion on what the decision itself should be, but the ambiguity has to go.

Taking out the dictionary helps define participate as it is used, but does not address the motion Dovster is relating to, which still seems to be in effect.

I think that TB should be grateful that this has been brought up during a vote where the outcome is not in question.

I also strongly encourage TB to support the intent of the 2005 motion. Abstaining as it stands is not a "NO" vote, but is a "NON-vote". Don't go backwards in time, we elect members to vote in FTs best interests. Steps should be kept in place to ensure participation in the course of TB duties is encouraged.

The motion was superceded by the guidelines that the TalkBoard subsequently adopted.

The TalkBoard guidelines explain how a motion passes. Currently it's true that an abstention has the effect of a 'no' -- because 2/3rds of those who cast a ballot have to do so in favor of a motion for it to pass. An abstention is a ballot that's not cast in favor.

Personally I favor this approach, I believe that a motion should be able to garner substantial actual support from members of the TalkBoard before considering it a recommendation on behalf of the membership, we shouldn't be changing things willy nilly or when calls are close, only when it's overwhelmingly clear to 2/3rds of folks casting a ballot that we ought to omve forward in a proposed direction.

And that's what was enshrined in the TalkBoard Guidelines.

Does anyone else see the irony that there's now a heated debate on what "abstain" & "is" is on a motion that had previously passed & the only reason it was up at all was due to a technicality, and then due to the technicality it allowed TB members to change their previous votes, and now everyone's duking it out on what abstain means????

You all can go back to the drawing board (no offense to koko). I'm just popping popcorn, getting a soda, and settling back into a comfy chair to watch. Well, given this is FT, maybe it should be a pour a glass or bottle of wine ;)

Cheers.

The guidelines were adopted in whole by successful motion of the TalkBoard.


TalkBoard procedure isn't rule by majority vote. Rather there's a requirement that a supermajority must be in favor of something in order to pass.

So the rule that's in place is that 2/3rds of those casting a ballot must do so in favor of a motion or the motion fails.

This approximates the idea that 2/3rds of the TalkBoard must be actively in favor of a motion for it to pass, but contemplates that someone could be away and simply unable to cast a ballot and if they do not show up for a vote that doesn't stand in the way of a motion's passage (someone who simply no shows is removed from the denominator, but of those remaining 2/3rds must still be explicitly in favor).

Actually since gleff posted while I was writing my prior post, to me "Ms Reg FT Member", my thoughts...if Abstain is considered a "No" vote, then Abstain should be eliminated & votes should be Yes, No, & No Vote.

And do TB members REALLY want to be pontificating about 'willy-nilly changes' when TB actually passed the motion the last time & it was only due to a technicality that you got to suddenly review it & then TB folk who voted for it before suddenly got to change their votes? I mean seriously? You really want to go there? Talk about 'willy-nilly'. :rolleyes:

While I have a lot of respect for TB, let's just say for me this entire situation was not your finest hour.

Cheers.

As observed earlier in the thread, registering an 'abstention' is effectively just declaring yourself "Present" for the vote and not non-participating (so that your TalkBoard membership isn't in jeopardy) while not voting to actively support a motion.

As I've said, a motion doesn't just need to 'pass' it needs to garner the active support of 2/4rds of the TalkBoard. And someone might want to say they're not ignoring things, they may not be actively opposed, but not actually willing to support something for passage.

It's an option we've always had.

I suspect folks don't like it when a different voting procedure might have allowed their preferred policy option to be recommended. But our voting procedures ought not be driven by a single issue or outcome. These things are very much designed to be status quo-biased, that there needs to be overwhelming support before tinkering with Flyertalk.

The status-quo at the time that the Guidelines were passed was the 2005 vote. Nothing in the Guidelines gives the definition of "participating", much less states that it has been changed to include abstaining.

I am not a fortune teller, and I have no idea of what the issue will be, but it is unquestionable that TB is building a situation where someday a very volatile issue is going to be decided by a vote in which abstentions play a part. Now is the time to get the matter officially decided -- and that would require any change to the 2005 motion to be passed by 2/3rds of those voting. If a new motion to that effect does not pass, the 2005 one would remain in effect.

As cblaisd and I have both posted in this thread, it reminds me of something which happened earlier.

I had to cut my first term on TalkBoard short because of health issues. Several months earlier, we had voted to fill a vacancy on TalkBoard with the first runner up in the most recent election (as opposed to the first runner up in the election during which the member who is leaving was selected).

At the time, of course, we had no idea of who this would help and who this would hurt.

When I resigned, TB announced that Doc would be replacing me. cblaisd questioned this as FewMiles had been the runner up in the voting in the election which put me in office.

This could have resulted in very hard feelings but it was defused by the fact that we were able to point to the motion, passed months earlier, and without personalities being involved, which unambiguously stated how a replacement would be appointed.

That is the proper way to handle things -- by clearly spelled out rules, not by what any one person, including the TalkBoard president, decides.

That's simply not correct. All previous votes concerning TB procedural matters were overridden by the adoption of new guidelines which fully spelled out all procedural matters for TB. By definition, the adoption of new guidelines superceded all previous motions - although many previous motions were enshrined and condensed into those guidelines. It actually says in the preamble to the guidelines (and guidelines which were passed by 2/3rds of TB members)
You keep quoting a rule which is utterly meaningless as though it means something. The current way of determining votes is by reference to the guidelines passed in 2008, and no other rules, as established by the fact that the guidelines state they supercede all and any other rules. Therefore, the only rule which applies is that quoted above - that votes are determined by a 2/3rd majority of those participating.

I suspect we can argue about participating until the cows come home. My recollection is that we wanted a distinction between those who did vote, but who abstained, and those who failed to vote, as otherwise a failure to vote becomes an automatic no - whereas someone who abstains has not shown agreement with the proposal, so their vote does need to be counted in the total.

Ah, then can you find for me in the new guidelines the statement that abstaining shall be considered participation?

Generally, of course, when we abstain from something we definitely do not participate. Abstaining from alcohol does not mean that you are downing Margaritas, abstaining from sex does not mean that you are having intercourse, and abstaining from the voting process does not mean that you are participating in it.

Of course, TalkBoard could override the 2005 decision and, as I said, if you will cite the part of the guidelines where it says that it has decided to do so, and to revert to the rules which existed pre-2005, I will fold my tent and go away from this discussion.

It already has
Those rules have also been superceded by the 2008 guidelines:
Not sure why that is so difficult to understand and why you think that there must be another rule hidden away somewhere. Nothing prior to 2008 applies. The only thing which applies is what is said in the 2008 guidelines. Now, that seems to be open to interpretation. To me, it's pretty unambiguous. You apply the rules as written. If they are unclear, then you follow Roberts. Some of you seem to be relying on experience from other committees etc. I'm not sure what standing that experience has, as there isn't any mention of it in the TB guidelines. There may also have to be differences between committees which meet physically, in real life, and a group which meets electronically. But if you really want to play the game:
Find me the rule which says that abstaining isn't considered participation.

Anyone have Roberts handy? I presume all of our TB members will be able to quote me the relevant sections, since you must all be familiar with Roberts ;)

FACT - The rules as presently written (2008) have the effect of ABSTAIN having the same value as NO. However, this IMHO is not the correct spirit that it was intended to be. I will be proposing that TB clarify and correct this point. If it is the correct spirit then we can reiterate that instead.

The guidelines do not even clearly state that voting for or voting against are participating. Because it's self-evident. Participating is the act of casting the ballot in a poll thread. Abstain is one of the choices, and it's the same action to vote abstain as to vote in favor or against.

Abstaining is participating, in contrast to not casting a ballot for one of the three choices in the poll thread which is not participating.

Yes, this is clear.

Here we disagree, but the Talkboard has the ability under the guidelines, with 2/3rds of those casting ballots, to change this.