I love a good oxymoron as much as the rest of you, but the TB Guidelines ought to at least use the English language in a way that doesn't torture it's plain meaning. You cannot vote and not vote (which is what abstain [from voting]) means!) at the same time.

There are less embarrasingly mangled ways to indicate that a member has "participated" in the opportunity to vote.

Indeed. And more, it's not just "confusing," it's illogical, self-contradictory, and devoid of any meaning.

If you have a beer with dinner you cannot simultaneously claim to have not had a drink with dinner.

Depending on how many beers you have, you can make any claim you want. :p

That's indeed -- hiccup -- true. You can say most anything you want; whether it makes any logical sense, tortures the language, or is fundamentally incoherent is another matter. :)

Yes, you did oppose ignoring abstentions in 2005 -- you were one of two TB members to vote against the motion.

I am in no way contending that you haven't been consistent in your opposition to it.

Still, let's review the situation:

1. In 2005 a very specific motion to count only yes and no votes was passed by TB 7-2.

2. In 2008, a new set of Guidelines was passed by TB. This set was, in most instances, merely a codification of existing rules. There were some exceptions (mostly in regard to removal of TB members) but these were clearly set out.

3. You say that you advocated repealing the 2005 measure, and I don't doubt for a moment that you did, but there is no evidence (by you or anyone else) that TB agreed with you -- or, for that matter, even thought that the new guidelines did that.

4. As recently as the latest vote that TB took, some members had no idea of what an abstention meant and asked you.

5. You determined that an abstention had the same effect as a "no" vote -- something which you had wanted back in 2005 -- and put it into effect. I have to wonder what would have happened had you favored the 2005 motion. Would you now have read the 2008 guidelines and come to the exact opposite conclusion as to what they mean?

(Note: I am not accusing you of doing anything wrong -- simply of being human.)

This, however, is not the way TB should work. Fortunately, the abstention had no impact this one particular motion. Abstentions will, undoubtedly, have impacts in the future and any decision to ignore the 2005 motion should not be based on the opposition of one of only two members at that time who voted against it.

Instead of this contention about how participation includes casting a vote to abstain (from voting for or against the motion), perhaps the vote choice could be renamed as "present".

I don't disagree, but I still think there is a need to clarify the guidelines. As described in the analysis of RRO above, some organizations require a certain percentage of the body to vote (regardless of who shows up for the vote), while other organizations require a certain percentage of people present to vote or people participating in the vote. Without explicit clarity, I fear we're going to have the same debate next time about the word "present."

In any case, given the ambiguity with the words "present," "participating," and the like, I do think defining these words is something we should look at.

That's fine -- as long as it is also decided whether being present constitutes participation.

Excellent idea

The problem is not what the third option in the ballot is called - that's just window dressing, although I realise that ungrammatical usage may pain some of you. The problem is actually what is meant by 'participating'. (although if we changing 'abstain' to 'was too damn indecisive to vote' I'd favour it :D)

Surely fairly simple to pass an amendment to the TB guidelines defining it? Something along the lines of
that section xyz of the TB guidelines be amended to read "A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’ where participating is defined as all members who vote yes, no, or abstain but not those who fail to vote
or alternatively
that section xyz of the TB guidelines be amended to read "A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’ where participating is defined as all members who vote yes or no, but not those who abstain or who fail to register a vote

If not amendment is passed, then the status quo remains, which means the President (whomsoever that is) determines what is meant by participating.

I'm not sure that the couching of an action in terms that make it impossible for that action to have any meaning that is not self-contradictory and oxymornic (which is to say, no -- or any! -- meaning whatsoever) is "window dressing."

Presuming that there is a private TalkBoard sub-forum where votes are carried out, all it would take would be for someone to post anything on such a thread to be participating. That would be the equivalent of being physically present at a meeting but not voting (that's the electronic analogue that is being hunted for here). If you post nothing on the thread, then you haven't participated. If you post on the thread and then don't vote, you have both participated and abstained. (to take the term back to its correct meaning).

That's actually something I suggested a couple of days ago in the TalkBoard's forum. @:-)

Any abstaining votes should come with detailed and legitimate reasons why, such as conflict of interests, or valid pre-determined leave, out of coverage, etc. Otherwise a TB member should not be allowed to abstain. TB members should be held accountable to their responsibilities.

If there remains no restrictions on casting a non-vote, I'd urge that after several abstentions, the TB member is treated just as a non-participating one and subject to removal.

I don't agree with that. In regards to the Mileage Run vote, if I had been on TB I would have abstained. I know practically nothing about that forum and would have much preferred to leave that decision to those members who are more informed about it. (I think that in this particular case, being "informed" means more than just being told -- it requires hands on experience.)

I would not, however, want my abstention to help defeat the motion any more than I would want it to help pass it.

IMHO knowing practically nothing about a forum is not reason enough to remain wilfully uneducated about the matter at hand and declare an abstention. As STP says there may be a few cases of conflicts of interest or unavoidable absences but again IMHO lack of knowledge coupled with a disinterest to learn more about the motion at hand is not reason enough to abstain.

Then the correct vote would be a no vote, not an abstention. We elect members to judge and participate in the decisions of flyertalk direction and policy. Not knowing is not an excuse for abstaining. In fact such actions would be the abuse of the abstaining vote, which should be reserved for conflict of interests, etc.

We elect TB to participate, which may include having to take time to study an issue. The proper vote would be to vote in favor or in opposition of a motion based on what's best for FT, not based on personal preference or opinions. If a TB member doesn't feel the vote warrant a yes, then the proper vote is no, without predjudice.

I have to say that I'm not too comfortable in the direction that this thread has taken, some twists and turns have come accross as mixing personalalities and grudges, mirroring them as principles. Although I would like to make a stand on particular points, I in no way want my posts to support any personal stance that may be made.

I appreciate that we have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. I also respect the work that the TB does. I support the approach of topics like these with an open mind, confident that their outcome will be in FTs best longterm interest.