I have thought this through.

Missing 3 votes does not mean automatic removal. It means that the member may be removed. I doubt in the example you've provided that such a removal would be acted upon.

I realize that there are many wild conspiracy theories afloat where TalkBoard members conspire to remove other TalkBoard members they don't like. In practice, they're fiction and I can't see any reasonable TalkBoard acting in such a manner. Other FlyerTalkers may feel differently, but I'm not going to accept wild conspiracy theories as a valid reason to change the way we tabulate votes.

The fact that I misread it at first and that people here are arguing over its meaning--NickB's excellent post discusses that--forces me to believe it's not clear.

Well, your post suggested that 3 missed/abstained votes was a clear sign of an "elected representative who really cannot or will not do his/her job". I am glad you clarified that you did not mean what your post implied.

:confused: What conspiracy theory? I have a deep aversion to conspiracy theories, which means that I have an equal aversion to second level conspiracy theories (i.e. conspiracy theories about the existence of a conspiracy theory).

In any event, this is all by the by: it is rather more fruitful to address the substantive issues rather than trying to second-guess intentions.

I concur.

However, when it is suggested (and it often is in this forum) that some TB members "might try to oust" (paraphrased) a TB member and try to use a method like semi-forced missed votes, I tend to read that as being way too far-fetched to use as a valid reason for policy making.

Thanks for sharing the quotes. :)

I agree that it's simply a game of word substitution to replace abstain with present without better definitions. I felt the guidelines were clear enough in saying that casting an abstention met the threshold of participation and that as such a majority of two-thirds of all participating TB members was required to pass a motion.

However, if more detailed TB guidelines with crystal clear definitions would satisfy all then working toward a consensus seems to make sense. And with that I'll abstain from future linguistic hair splitting for at least 48 hours. ;)

A simple majority might be sufficient for minor things like the US declaring war or passing its annual budget but it would never suffice for crucial matters like whether or not Malev should have its own forum.

You're definitely not convincing me by using the US Congress as a poster boy for good voting or decision-making! :D

Given the non-real-time nature of a bulletin board (necessitating lengthy voting periods--especially on a BB full of traveling people) and the fact that TalkBoard members are volunteers (and there WILL be, as there has even recently been, periods where members may not have the time to research and understand the full causes and ramifications of a motion), I still think there is some value to a way to register that you are not comfortable participating in a vote.

That said, Spiff did say that a member who does not wish to vote can contact the TB President to allow the vote to close earlier than it otherwise would, and so I am not entirely opposed to simply eliminating the third option (whether it be "abstain," "present," or whatever.), although I still believe there may be value to having that third option as I described above.

I definitely do agree that abstentions should be rare events, and I myself do not currently plan on abstaining from any TB votes unless it represents a direct conflict of interest for me.

You mean I wasn't the first to say that?!

And here I thought I was being so original! :D

According to Robert's Rules of Order, an abstention is a non-vote. It does not count for any purpose. A vote of 1-0 with 99 abstentions, in a room of 100 people will pass a motion by majority vote or 2/3 vote. Abstainers count for a quorum if that matters (it doesn't here), but their votes do not count on either side.

The following, from the official Robert's FAQ site here, gives their position. (A Web search will turn up many more sources. The eight I checked all said the same thing in this regard.)

I am not suggesting that FT or anyone else should follow Robert's just because it's Robert's, but its rules are there because they have been shown over many years to work. Absent a good reason to be different, which I submit we don't have, we ought to follow them.

Thank you. That's why it's called abstaining ;)

Actually, in that situation you can legitimately claim that the vote in favor was unanimous.

Well said.

No, not for a quorum on FT but it does indicate the TB member participating in a decision even if it's to show nothing more than acknowledgement of the motion without casting a ballot for or against.

Anybody who posts on this thread is participating in a decision to at least the same degree as a TB member who abstains but that does not mean we are voting -- and we certainly should not be counted as if we were.

Yes, abstaining does not equal voting. Yes, according to the TB Guidelines abstaining does constitute participation. Yes, according to TB Guidelines a motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.' Not two-thirds of those voting either for or against the motion, two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote.

If you favor a rewording of that section why not ask two TBers to propose an ammendment and debate the verbiage further? Should that happen perhaps other sections of the TB Guidelines should be subjected to as much scrutiny for similarly suspect script.

Any section of the Guidelines which is not absolutely clear should be reviewed and reworded -- I completely agree with you on that.

Ditto! I've been away from the thread for a week. Just got caught up & now my head hurts. Is it too early for a drink? She looks at clock - it's after 12pm, so nope ;) :D I'll look forward to how this all turns out. Hopefully everyone will agree on abstain & is at some point.

Cheers.

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.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that these exist right now. We should however never permit a mechanism to exist that might allow it at some future time with less scrupulous folks in office.

Cliques can take many forms. We could have all OMNI regulars. We currently have all men. We could have all Star MegaDO organizers who vote as a block to create a separate forum for discussion of that one event. Or we could have all bloggers.

Really, what matters is the judgment, dignity, and experience each member brings to their Talkboard service.

In other words, there are good Talkboard members and bad TalkBoard members.

In my own personal opinion we have had some of both kinds over the years, far more good than bad, though I don't thin kthat the group of less effective or noble membes have had obvious consistely-defined demographic characteristics.

That would be elected 'less scrupulous' people surely.

I must have missed that agenda.

Unless a simple majority somehow changes the requirements that TalkBoard should be elected perhaps?

One can always come up with paranoid scenario. The point remains that 2/3 is not a bad threshold to maintain, but lets not make it any harder than it already is.

Funny, I see your push to reduce from 2/3 to simple majority to be part of that "agenda".

Agreed. Therefore we should not let the ability to generate endless paranoid scenarios cloud our judgment. :)

And seeking to limit moderator participation on TB isn't an agenda?

Of course it's on my agenda. It was part of my manifesto when I ran for TalkBoard and I raise the issue any chance I get in the TalkBoard forum. :)

I've noticed, trust me.

Well I don't see much support from the other Moderators on TB for this idea. After all, the proposal came from the membership!