Jenbel

You might want to take this to the new thread koko has just started

tcook052

Yes, although when I read his proposal it still strikes me as curious legislative wordsmithing to have one act constitute both particpation and non-particpation at the same time. Just MHO.

Spiff

I don't really get the impetus to change to such a system simply because one does not like outcomes where 5 vote yes, 2 vote no, and two abstain (or some permutation where there are 5 yes votes and 2 or fewer no votes) does not pass. If there are 9 office holders, it seems that this proposal has no effect on votes with 4 or fewer yes votes [Not a majority of office holders] or six or more yes votes [motion passes regardless of how other 3 vote]. What it appears to do is target the votes with only 5 yes votes and at least 2 abstentions. (If I am reading it correctly). What this does is lower the bar from super-majority to majority + ambivalence. (to paraphrase - there are other possible reasons for not voting yes or no). I don't really see the need to do so.

Jenbel

The impetus is what it was in 2005.

It's entirely possible to abstain on controversial issues but not have to justify to the membership that you voted against them.

For example, member A has done nothing on TB all year, but is liked by a clique of other TB members. They have now missed 5 votes, and the FT members are now baying for their blood. Member A's friends could successfully block any attempt to unseat them by abstaining under the current system, but would have to actually fess up and vote no to stop them being unseated if we go back to how it was.

Why is it a bad thing to force TB members to have to vote no if they want to block something?

(I have just registered the irony of your signature on this discussion ).

Spiff

I do also think abstentions should be rare. But they should still be a choice.

Jenbel

And they would still be a choice. Just not a choice to hide behind an abstention to avoid having to explain why you voted no.

Spiff

Many of us are always willing to explain exactly why we voted the way we did.

kokonutz

Decisions should be taken by those who care enough to take a decision. Not by those who do not/will not. Simple as that.

As it stands today, abstentions are viewed a coward's no whether they are for other more legitimate reasons or not.

That's a broken system.

Spiff

Correction: abstentions are viewed by some a coward's no, not necessarily by all. I believe that is especially true if one is willing to state explicitly why one abstained (or voted yes or no for that matter).

DeaconFlyer

As the OP, my impetus is that, as of right now, the rules are vague, and as I understand it, are up to the interpretation of the President.

I feel that something as fundamentally important as voting should be spelled out specifically, and not left up to the interpretation of one person.

I hope that all the members of TB will weigh in on the matter in the near future, and the proposal will be voted on.

Sagy

With apologies and thanks to DeaconFlyer and jackal. So building on their work:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Voting Procedures

i. Once a motion has been made and seconded the President shall post a sticky poll thread in the TalkBoard forum calling the question and announcing the vote. The thread shall be titled "Vote: [summary of motion]". In the first post on the sticky poll thread the President shall post the maker and seconder of the motion as well as the voting deadline and then restate the motion that has been made and seconded.
ii. TalkBoard members may participate in a vote by registering their vote of yes or no while the voting period is open. They may also decline to participate in a vote by marking that they abstain, in which case they shall not be counted as participating members. Such abstention shall not count as non-participation for the purpose of enforcing Section 3(F)(vii)(b) of the TalkBoard guidelines.
iii. It is each TalkBoard members’ responsibility to check the TalkBoard forum often enough that they do not inadvertently miss a vote.
iv. A TalkBoard member who is otherwise unable to log onto FlyerTalk due to a suspension may appeal to the FlyerTalk Host for the privilege of access to the private TalkBoard forum for the sole purpose of conducting TalkBoard business including voting on motions.
v. Once a TalkBoard member casts a vote that vote is final.
vi. Regular motions shall be kept open for a period of two weeks from the posting of the sticky poll unless

a. under extenuating circumstances, the President may call for a shorter voting period although in no circumstance shall a vote be open for less than five days.
b. all TalkBoard members have registered their vote.

vii. A motion shall pass if:
a. two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote, vote ‘yes’ - calculated as:
number of ‘yes’ votes/(number of ‘yes’ votes + number of ‘no’ votes)
b. and at least half of the TalkBoard members registered their vote as ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘abstain.’
viii. At the close of a voting period the President shall formally announce the results in the sticky thread and instruct the Vice President/Secretary to comply with the TalkBoard’s public notice procedures.
ix. When motions containing recommendations for changes to FlyerTalk are passed the President shall communicate that recommendation to the FlyerTalk Host.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason behind this proposal is to:

1. Distinguish between a registered ‘no’ vote and a registered ‘abstain’ vote
2. Address a potential ambiguity in the current wording of the Voting Procedures
3. Ensure that Voting Procedures require a quorum (right now a motion might pass with a single ‘yes’ and eight ‘not voting’).

Thanks for your consideration

B747-437B

Folks, these rules are getting way too complicated now.

Can we try to start from scratch and think about what we want to achieve before trying to write lengthy motions with loopholes and the like?

Markie

Now that's a bit harsh isn't it?

Sagy

Fair.

So how about leaving section (C)(ii)
ii. TalkBoard members may register their vote of yes, no or abstain while the voting period is open.
as is.

And modifying section (C)(vii) to read
vii. A motion shall pass if
a. two-thirds or more of TalkBoard members registering a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in that vote, vote ‘yes.’
b. and at least half of the TalkBoard members registered their vote as ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘abstain.’’
Clarifying that the "two-thirds" majority requirement ignores the ‘abstain’ votes. Ensuring that each vote has a quorum of at least half the total TalkBoard membership.

jackal

I have gone ahead and officially moved that the proposal (as I originally proposed it earlier upthread) be considered by the TalkBoard.

I am not optimistic it will pass, but I am hopeful it will lead to further debate about what exactly we can compromise and find consensus on. I'd be willing to look at some other proposals, such as the one described by Spiff above with four options.

I look forward to seeing the membership engage with the TalkBoard members about their votes on this issue.

(Sagy, no offense was intended in not using your verbiage in this motion. I actually made the motion last night before you posted your revised/simplified wording in the post just before this one.)