If a TalkBoard member has no intention of voting, that member can email/PM the TalkBoard president and tell him/her of this decision so that the vote can be closed early. While this is not in the TalkBoard guidelines specifically as it hasn't seemed to come up, I see no reason why anyone would object.

While "none of the above" might be good where a yes/no vote is not called for (eg, in the election of TB officers), it makes no sense where you are being asked if you agree to something like the establishment of a new forum.

You either agree or you don't agree. There is no other possibility.

If you agree, you vote in favor. If you disagree, you vote no. If you have no opinion you should not vote (which is what abstaining means) but it seems odd to me that your lack of a vote should count as a "no".

That being said, deciding now and putting into writing that it will be viewed as a "no" is better than the current situation -- where your abstention is whatever a current TB president wants it to be.

A vote with 5 in favor, 2 against, and 2 abstaining will not pass while Gleff is president but might pass when someone else is. Does that make sense to anyone?

It's possible for a person to see both sides or neither side.

Also, the way the guidelines are written now, I don't think it matters whether gleff is president or not president. 5 in favor with 9 choosing an available option is still not 2/3rds.

But 5 in favor with 7 choosing is 2/3rds -- and the current guidelines do not spell out what "participating" in a vote is. (The 2005 motion, which was the last to spell it out, said that only "yes" or "no" votes are counted.)

No, not really much sense, at least not to me as I don't think it's too much to expect that TB members form an opinion on the motion at hand.

I don't recall ever abstaining on a motion on TB but I could certainly foresee instances where I would have no opinion and would prefer that the decision be taken by those TB members who do.

I would also support a change to a simple majority but a majority of members of talkboard (i.e. 5 in practice).
rationale: the 2/3 rule is presumably designed to ensure that a substantial majority favours the motion. It seems to me that requiring a simple majority of members would be high enough a threshold to satisfy that requirement and would avoid problems with abstentions.
I would be less confident with a simple majority of members 'present' or 'participating' as it opens the possibility of a motion being voted through without very clear support in TB.

It should be noted that even with abstentions not be counted, an abstention either keeps the 2/3rds majority or actually increases it.

If no one abstains, 6 members must vote "yes": 6 out of 9 = 66 2/3%.

If one member abstains, 6 members must vote "yes": 6 out of 8 = 75%.

If two members abstain, 5 members must vote "yes": 5 out of 7 = 71.4%

If three members abstain, 4 members must vote "yes": 4 out of 6 = 66 2/3%.

If four members abstain, 4 members must vote "yes": 4 out of 5: = 80%.

If five members abstain, 3 members must vote "yes": 3 out of 4 = 75%.

If six members abstain, 2 members must vote "yes": 2 out of 3 = 66 2/3%.

If seven members abstain, 2 members must vote "yes": 2 out of 2 = 100%.

If eight members abstain, 1 member must vote "yes": 1 out of 1 = 100%.

I doubt that we will ever see a situation where more than 3 abstain, and even that will be rare, but even in theory a 2/3rds majority of those voting -- minimum -- is required.

Dovster, I am not making up rules, they are pretty clearly written. It seems a pretty tortured reading to suggest that someone who goes into the poll thread and selects 'Abstain', submits their vote, has not 'participated.'

I was in favor of this language when it was adopted by the TalkBoard but that does not mean I am somehow using a degree of discretion to enforce my preferences. :confused:

Gleff, I don't doubt for a moment that you believe that, but I see it completely oppositely -- that it is impossible that by abstaining someone is somehow participating.

Had the guidelines spelled out that an abstention is a participation, I would have thought it was an unwise change but I would not have posted about it.

How you see it is irrelevant if how it's written is different. There are a million ways to interpret things, but as the 2008 wording overrides the 2005 wording, and when someone makes a selection out of their choices, regardless of what that selection means, they are participating and 2/3rds of those participating are required to choose the "yes" selection for a motion to pass.

You say that the current guidelines don't spell out what participating means...the guidlines state:

and

So based on that, the vote options are "yes, no, or abstain" and 2/3rds of those casting a vote of "yes, no, or abstain" must vote "yes".

It's quite simple and clear.

Sorry, but that is like saying that if you are asked if you want Pepsi or Coke, and you say that you don't want either, you have chosen a soft drink.

Wrong.

The question is not Pepsi or Coke, it's Pepsi, yes or no.

One knows one has to make choices when one stands for election to TalkBoard and usually any other advisory board.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush

:)

Fair enough, but if you say "I don't know" you can't be said to have made a choice.

"I don't know." should seldom be the answer.

There's usually discussion in both the public and private forums.

There's discussion before the vote to shape the motion.

There's discussion while the vote is in progress and there's 2 weeks to vote.

I have a hard time believing "I don't know" is still the answer after all the above have occurred, other than very rarely.