Proposal to ammend TB voting rules re: Participation
Dec 14, 2010, 11:27 pm
#16
Original Member, Ambassador: OneWorld Alliance
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Programs: AA ExecPlat & 3MM; Marriott Titanium
Posts: 1,015
Generally, I think that jackal idea is a good one. Where I do have a concern is with the non-voting members. Specifically in cases such as:
Y/N/A/NV
4/0/2/3
4/2/1/2
In both cases, super majority (>=6) members participated in the vote and 2/3 majority was achieved. To require a motion to also take into account people that choose not to vote seems wrong to me. I can understand the requirement for a quorum (either either 5 or 6 sounds fine), but to require 2/3 plus a majority of all possible voters might be too restrictive.
To illustrate my reasoning, today all votes with 6 "Yes" votes will pass and that will not change. Any vote with 3 "No" and less than 6 "Yes" will fail and this will not change either. The question is what will happen to votes with 4 & 5 "Yes" votes - I think that people are OK with 5 "Yes" and less than 3 "No", passing (this is also the same as today, if the other two don't vote).
The cases in question are those that would pass today, but will fail if a majority of all possible voters is required:
Y/N/A/NV
4/0/2/3
4/0/1/4
4/1/1/3
4/2/0/3
With "Abstain" not counting as a "No" anymore the following will also be added to the Pass column (today all of these will fail)
Y/N/A/NV
4/2/1/2
4/2/2/1
4/2/3/0
All of these seem like reasonable outcomes.
Y/N/A/NV
4/0/2/3
4/2/1/2
In both cases, super majority (>=6) members participated in the vote and 2/3 majority was achieved. To require a motion to also take into account people that choose not to vote seems wrong to me. I can understand the requirement for a quorum (either either 5 or 6 sounds fine), but to require 2/3 plus a majority of all possible voters might be too restrictive.
To illustrate my reasoning, today all votes with 6 "Yes" votes will pass and that will not change. Any vote with 3 "No" and less than 6 "Yes" will fail and this will not change either. The question is what will happen to votes with 4 & 5 "Yes" votes - I think that people are OK with 5 "Yes" and less than 3 "No", passing (this is also the same as today, if the other two don't vote).
The cases in question are those that would pass today, but will fail if a majority of all possible voters is required:
Y/N/A/NV
4/0/2/3
4/0/1/4
4/1/1/3
4/2/0/3
With "Abstain" not counting as a "No" anymore the following will also be added to the Pass column (today all of these will fail)
Y/N/A/NV
4/2/1/2
4/2/2/1
4/2/3/0
All of these seem like reasonable outcomes.
Dec 15, 2010, 5:39 am
#17
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
If you are thinking that expecting more than 5 votes to allow a vote to pass might be too restrictive, then perhaps you might say how many times those voting outcomes have been achieved in the past few years? I can think of one vote only where there were two no votes (because I was one of them). Some of the MTW votes had some screwy results. But if those potential outcomes are so rare they might have come up only once or twice (or not at all), I'd suggest a rule which doesn't take account of them isn't being too restrictive.
Somebody once made a nice spreadsheet tracking individual's voting records - that would be a quick way to see how often this result occurred. Only problem is I can't remember who it was
Somebody once made a nice spreadsheet tracking individual's voting records - that would be a quick way to see how often this result occurred. Only problem is I can't remember who it was
Dec 15, 2010, 9:24 am
#18
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
I personally don't have a problem with a motion passing with 1 yes, 0 no and 8 abstains or 'did not votes'.
Votes have consequences. And when you chose not to decide (by voting to abstain) you are leaving the decision in the hands of those who DO care to decide. Even if only one person cares enough to decide. Which is preciesely what abstentions are MEANT to allow!!! @:-)
MY solution would be to change the 'abstain' nomenclature to 'present.'
And while voting 'present' keeps a TB member from running afoul of the missed-votes requirements, it should NOT affect the outcome of the vote in any way.
Votes have consequences. And when you chose not to decide (by voting to abstain) you are leaving the decision in the hands of those who DO care to decide. Even if only one person cares enough to decide. Which is preciesely what abstentions are MEANT to allow!!! @:-)
MY solution would be to change the 'abstain' nomenclature to 'present.'
And while voting 'present' keeps a TB member from running afoul of the missed-votes requirements, it should NOT affect the outcome of the vote in any way.
Dec 15, 2010, 11:20 am
#20
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,624
My biggest disappointment in the last TalkBoard term was our inability to reach agreement on this seemingly trivial issue. Perhaps the unwillingness to bend was precisely BECAUSE the issue is trivial.
Perhaps members would have been more willing to accept less than their ideal in the interest of reaching agreement if the issue had been important. I certainly hope that was the case.
Perhaps members would have been more willing to accept less than their ideal in the interest of reaching agreement if the issue had been important. I certainly hope that was the case.
Dec 15, 2010, 1:05 pm
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,110
Hi there. I've been off FT since last weekend due to being sick, and am just online to do a quick catch up. I've got a biz conf call which I wish I could postpone, but can't & then I'm headed back to bed. I'll reread this tomorrow when hopefully my head isn't stuffed, my tummy isn't roiling & I can follow the stats, arguments for, against, etc, in both the public & private TB forums & other threads listed. I appreciate the input of everyone. BTW - I sucked at statistics, so it may take me a few rereads to make it through everything 
Cheers.
Cheers.
Dec 15, 2010, 1:28 pm
#22
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
My biggest disappointment in the last TalkBoard term was our inability to reach agreement on this seemingly trivial issue. Perhaps the unwillingness to bend was precisely BECAUSE the issue is trivial.
Perhaps members would have been more willing to accept less than their ideal in the interest of reaching agreement if the issue had been important. I certainly hope that was the case.
Perhaps members would have been more willing to accept less than their ideal in the interest of reaching agreement if the issue had been important. I certainly hope that was the case.
Dec 15, 2010, 1:38 pm
#23
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
My biggest disappointment in the last TalkBoard term was our inability to reach agreement on this seemingly trivial issue. Perhaps the unwillingness to bend was precisely BECAUSE the issue is trivial.
Perhaps members would have been more willing to accept less than their ideal in the interest of reaching agreement if the issue had been important. I certainly hope that was the case.
Perhaps members would have been more willing to accept less than their ideal in the interest of reaching agreement if the issue had been important. I certainly hope that was the case.
Dec 15, 2010, 1:58 pm
#24
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
My biggest disappointment in the last TalkBoard term was our inability to reach agreement on this seemingly trivial issue. Perhaps the unwillingness to bend was precisely BECAUSE the issue is trivial.
Perhaps members would have been more willing to accept less than their ideal in the interest of reaching agreement if the issue had been important. I certainly hope that was the case.
Perhaps members would have been more willing to accept less than their ideal in the interest of reaching agreement if the issue had been important. I certainly hope that was the case.
This is EXACTLY the sort of vote that should be taken whether there is consensus or not. FTers deserve to know where each of the TB members stand on an issue like this, imho.
Dec 15, 2010, 2:34 pm
#25
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Yes.
I've yet to see a good argument for retaining the current status quo which TB has already voted to change from already once because it didn't work then. Those on TB with me have already worked under the other system and didn't seem to object to it then. What is the problem with reinstating the previous system which seems to have got lost along the way?
I've yet to see a good argument for retaining the current status quo which TB has already voted to change from already once because it didn't work then. Those on TB with me have already worked under the other system and didn't seem to object to it then. What is the problem with reinstating the previous system which seems to have got lost along the way?
Dec 15, 2010, 2:36 pm
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
Dec 15, 2010, 3:26 pm
#27
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,624
However I have to say that it didn't work in the last term, and that I have great respect for your opinion on any matter. In short, I could be wrong about this.
Dec 15, 2010, 3:33 pm
#28
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,624
In other words, FT deserved and deserves a true consensus agreement on this issue. Horse trade with some other issues if you have to, but find 6 votes and get it done. Just my opinion.
Dec 15, 2010, 4:34 pm
#29
Original Member, Ambassador: OneWorld Alliance
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Programs: AA ExecPlat & 3MM; Marriott Titanium
Posts: 1,015
If you are thinking that expecting more than 5 votes to allow a vote to pass might be too restrictive, then perhaps you might say how many times those voting outcomes have been achieved in the past few years? I can think of one vote only where there were two no votes (because I was one of them). Some of the MTW votes had some screwy results. But if those potential outcomes are so rare they might have come up only once or twice (or not at all), I'd suggest a rule which doesn't take account of them isn't being too restrictive.
Somebody once made a nice spreadsheet tracking individual's voting records - that would be a quick way to see how often this result occurred. Only problem is I can't remember who it was
Somebody once made a nice spreadsheet tracking individual's voting records - that would be a quick way to see how often this result occurred. Only problem is I can't remember who it was
Yes, we must make sure that votes in which there is only 1,2 or three people participating don't carry the day - this is the reason for quorum requirement. Should that number be 4 (more than 1/3), 5 (more than 1/2) or 6 (2/3) of the eligible voters? I'm not sure, and I could go with any of them. However, once there is a quorum, the only requirement on the vote should be the needed majority (be it 1/2+1, 3/5 or 2/3). If a quorum (let's say 6) is in place and the vote is 2 "Yes", 0 "No" and 4 "Present" then the motion is passed - the 4 people that voted "Present" didn't object to the motion any one of them could have stop the motion from passing by simply not voting (5 is less than the required quorum in this example).
Bottom line, "quorum" and "needed majority" are two separate requirements, let's not try and roll them into one.
Dec 15, 2010, 4:53 pm
#30
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
Well, that's pretty much what happened last term. What I hoped for was that 5 or 6 people could meet somewhere in the middle, especially given that the current interpretation appears to be a semi-accidental change from the way things worked before the comprehensive TB Guidelines were written.
In other words, FT deserved and deserves a true consensus agreement on this issue. Horse trade with some other issues if you have to, but find 6 votes and get it done. Just my opinion.
In other words, FT deserved and deserves a true consensus agreement on this issue. Horse trade with some other issues if you have to, but find 6 votes and get it done. Just my opinion.