That's pretty much my reasoning too. Abstaining should be a very, very rare occurrence.

I don't think it's too much trouble to vote yes or no. One can also choose to not vote if one does not want one's rare abstention to be a de facto nay vote. Not voting should be even rarer than an abstention and should not land the non-voter into difficulties with our TalkBoard guidelines unless one does so three times in a row.

I'm for the status quo:

2/3rds super-majority for motion to pass.
Abstaining is participating.

Serving on TalkBoard or any elected board requires active participation in the voting process and, if necessary educating one's self about the issue(s) at hand.

Completely agree. Abstentions due to unfamiliarity is too easy a way out, at least it is IMHO.

I don't think that is the case at all. When I began this discussion I had no idea of how any particular member of TB felt about this. Indeed, as we have seen from the above posts, in 2005 Gleff may have felt the way he does now but Spiff had a different position.

Indeed, the avoidance of personalities is exactly why this matter should be clarified now when no vote is pending which can be impacted by it.

(As for myself, when I ran for my second term on TalkBoard I said that I oppose anyone having three terms and would not run again. I still hold that position so I certainly will not be directly impacted.)

Black is white.
Dog is cat.
(Spiff is TSA. :p)

I concur that the threshold requirements should not be modified, but "Abstain" should be renamed to something a bit more descriptive.

"Someone get me a beer!"? :D

I would agree with this and cannot see why we need 'Abstain'. If a member of TB wishes to support the status-quo they simply vote No!

It allows one to make a statement about the issue, though most/all of us are willing to explain why we voted the way we did.

If a TB member wants to make a statement with his abstention, shouldn't he really abstain rather than cast a disguised "no" vote?

That's called not voting.

Abstaining from doing something is called not doing it.

That includes voting.

Here, however, we make believe that the person has actually voted and consider it a "no" vote.

You recognized the illogic of that in 2005 when you voted to change the system and not view abstentions as having any value -- either for or against a motion.

Here, abstaining is not voting on the issue as opposed to not participating.

I've been a part of many votes with TalkBoard, as you point out. I prefer the current system for the reasons I've already given in this thread.

"None of the above" is a simple option to "Abstain".

I'd be good with that assuming it still requires 2/3rds of those voting, including those stating None of the Above, to vote yes.

There is one issue with forcing people to not vote: votes here are open for two weeks. Unlike in-person roll-call votes, where votes are only open for a few hours, a single person who is abstaining can delay the outcome of the vote for two weeks, even if the other eight members vote on the first day the vote is open.

I propose changing it to "And now for something completely different..." ;)

Well, the recent debacle of votes and repeals and absentions has been quite Pythonesque....