How about a motion to the TB, or did you do this after you were elected?

Please remind me again what's the purpose of this discussion thread?
 

I thought this now-stand-alone-discussion thread was about what is a "countable" vote in TB 2/3 majority, instead of the eligibility of TB memberships.

Darn it! I thought I was getting sooo close to an honorable law degree from reading TB Topics Forum on FT. Silly me. Please pardon this non-English native speaker.

Can someone kindly remind me what's this discussion thread all about?

Forgive me for participating, as a FT member and in no other capacity (and here I have no other capacity, obviously!).

Until (or unless) there is a compelling case, supported by at least a majority of TB participants on this thread, this discussion may well only benefit people participating in the creation of new arguments in order to promote agendas or stymie proposals.

It seems more like a political policy unit's squabbling law grads, rather than a convention of learned colleagues, but I take your point.

Since the current TalkBoard is nearing the end of its run, for some members, what I can take away from this thread is that each participants' arguments here is their platform for re-election.

I have not followed this forum for a couple of weeks since I am yet to see anything which gives me hope that this is leading to a decisive vote.

For some of us, there are more pressing/important/deeper issues in the world that splitting this particular hair or particle. Don't let the general FTer level of disinterest in this thread stop your arguments. For how else does a lawyer get arguing practice, but in TBT and OMNI/PR? :)

So sad, isn't it?

Maybe for those TBers with this intent, they should get a room with Randy first then plead for an early opening of TalkBoard Elections/10 (sub)Forum? ;)

FWIW, if the (running) TBer-candidates, let it be new or old, cannot tell the issues at hand in thread and address them fully & accordingly, how could the general membership expect them to attack the "right" targets/issues once (re)elected? Am I being silly again?

Please allow me to re-introduce the thread topic as I know it:

Would it be too much to ask the current TBers to come up with something concrete to solve this (how-to-count-votes) math problem? A proposal would be nice. A motion? Even better.

Thank you for listening.

This has been done (remove the Abstain option), but there is insufficient support as you can tell from TB member posts here. I cannot even secure a seconder, so I am afraid there will not be a change even after the elections.:td:

It's important to try to build conscensus before just tossing out motions...

Well the consensus is 'No Change' !

I don't see a consensus yet for anything. Until that happens, the "no change" position wins. That's not the same as a consensus for "no change", but the result is the same.

Let's see shall we? My money is pretty firmly on 'no change' for quite a few months yet!;)

Well I am taking a little break for work between vacations so thought I'd chime in on this.

As best I can recall, during the arduous and drawn-out process of putting the current TB guidelines together there was a lengthy and somewhat contentious debate about whether an 'abstain' ought to count as a 'no' vote or as a 'no vote' in terms of the 2/3 math.

In the end the 'no' prevailed over 'no vote' by a simple majority 5-4 straw poll (which, ironically enough given the current topic, is how the guidelines were constructed). And in the end there was enough compromise and give-and-take in the final document that those (like me) who thought an abstain ought to be 'no vote' rather than a 'no' vote felt compelled to vote for the overall document including the odious (to me) provision.

Of course, I no longer have access to those debate archives (yet another reason why the TB deliberations forum ought to be open to all posters on a read-only basis, imho!!!!), and I'm sure that while current TB members could go and look at the archives, for them to post who said what there here could potentially lead to their expulsion from the TB. That said, I do specifically give my express written consent for any TB member to re-post whatever I posted about this matter in the private TB forum in this forum if I have misremembered or if anything there might help shed light on this matter.

But, bottom line, as I recall, like it or lump it, an 'abstain' currently is the same as 'no.'

Hopefully TB members are voting accordingly, and TB observers are tabulating votes thusly:

Yes = SUPPORT CHANGE
No = OPPOSE CHANGE
Abstain = OPPOSE CHANGE

koko -- again, your efforts during that period are very much still appreciated as are your comments here.

Sure thing, boss. ^

And frankly I'm not even sure why this issue has come up as I've been enjoying a quiet little retirement from the TB and this forum, although I am guessing it has to do with the (to me bizarre) chain of votes, unvotes and revotes on the MR forum.