Voting Closed - Motion Failed: Abstentions Don't Count Against Passage of Motions
Dec 30, 2010, 11:09 am
#31
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,107
Too many of the TB members WANT 'abstain' to count as a 'no.' I'm told it is rude to say it's because it allows for a 'coward's no,' but since that's what I believe, that's what I'll say.
In any case, it'll be interesting to see how the voting turns out on this. I wonder if anyone will abstain!?
In any case, it'll be interesting to see how the voting turns out on this. I wonder if anyone will abstain!?
BTW - with the back/forth & folk posting different #s of how it impacts (or doesn't) & what 'is is' means changing from 2005 to 2008 (weren't you the one who helped draft the guidelines - how'd ya let that one pass by you
), the thought of abstaining did cross my mind 
But I believe abstain should be used rarely & only when there is a conflict of interest or if a person hasn't had time to do research due to travel or real-world work. In those instances I don't think that abstain is taking the coward's way; in fact, the opposite, of not just tossing in a vote (yes or no) simply to say one voted without doing due diligence.
If one does use abstain to avoid an outright no vote, I don't think that's appropriate behavior. Right or wrong (and I'm sure I'll be both during the next 2 years!), people will always know where I stand on things.
FWIW - the thought of abstaining did actually pass my mind (and the irony is not lost on me)
, but I figure being confused by the back/forth, the #s, and how it impacts everything wasn't a good reason to not vote. Or actually maybe it is LOL...I haven't made up my mind yet yes/no & as mentioned previously, have reached out to a # of the 'regular' FT members everyone is so fond of reminding us that we represent to get their input, in addition to those who post here on a regular basis.
Cheers. Sharon
Dec 30, 2010, 11:29 am
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
As TB almost always has 9 members, that paragraph means that 5 must vote "yes".
Let's see what this changes:
6, 7, 8, or 9 vote "Yes" and the motion passes even without this change.
1, 2, 3, or 4 vote "Yes" and the motion fails with or without this change.
5 vote yes, 3 vote no, and 1 abstains: The vote gets 62.5% and fails, with or without this change.
The only change will be where 5 vote "yes" and 2 or less vote "no" with the remainder abstaining. I can not remember that ever happening.
Let's see what this changes:
6, 7, 8, or 9 vote "Yes" and the motion passes even without this change.
1, 2, 3, or 4 vote "Yes" and the motion fails with or without this change.
5 vote yes, 3 vote no, and 1 abstains: The vote gets 62.5% and fails, with or without this change.
The only change will be where 5 vote "yes" and 2 or less vote "no" with the remainder abstaining. I can not remember that ever happening.
Bruce
Dec 30, 2010, 11:43 am
#33
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,600
I apologize to the community for this sloppy due diligence!
Dec 30, 2010, 1:23 pm
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fort Worth TX
Programs: Earned status with AA, DL, SPG, HH, Hyatt, Marriott, Seabourn, NCL, National, Hertz...I miss my bed!
Posts: 10,927
For the second time this month, koko gets an "I fully agree". My perception is tha abstentions have been used by some as a political tool by some on TB to "hedge" and avoid being accused of blocking something they are, in fact, not in favor of.
If you are incapable of having a reasoned opinion on something, you shouldn't be on the TB.
If you are incapable of having a reasoned opinion on something, you shouldn't be on the TB.
Well unfortunately for those who currently vote 'abstain' with pure intentions, their vote can too easily be interpreted at a coward's no.
As this proposal would lift that stain from their intentions, all the more reason for its quick passage. ^
That said, I don't think 'I can't make up my mind' is a good reason to abstain. TB members are elected to make up their minds. If they cannot, they should step down.
A good reason to abstain, to my mind, is a conflict of interest or the TB member does not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand based on the debate and information provided.
In any case, whatever the motivation for the abstention, abstentions should not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum, never in deciding the outcome.
As this proposal would lift that stain from their intentions, all the more reason for its quick passage. ^
That said, I don't think 'I can't make up my mind' is a good reason to abstain. TB members are elected to make up their minds. If they cannot, they should step down.
A good reason to abstain, to my mind, is a conflict of interest or the TB member does not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand based on the debate and information provided.
In any case, whatever the motivation for the abstention, abstentions should not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum, never in deciding the outcome.
Dec 30, 2010, 3:33 pm
#35
Moderator, Marriott Bonvoy & FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: McKinney, TX, USA
Programs: United Silver; AA Plat/2MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Hilton Gold
Posts: 11,727
Help me to get this right.
1. 2005 - A motion to change how voting would be tallied was passed. This motion stated 'only "Yes" and "No" votes will be considered when calculating whether a vote passes or fails'. It specifically dealt with not treating abstention votes the same as a "No" vote.
2. 2008 - A document to "codify" the rules around the TB was created and approved by TB. This document was not meant to "change" any rules and was only to "quantify" what the already agreed upon rules for TB were.
3. Some time later it was noted that the document had accidentally misrepresented what the 2005 motion stated.
If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.
So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.
1. 2005 - A motion to change how voting would be tallied was passed. This motion stated 'only "Yes" and "No" votes will be considered when calculating whether a vote passes or fails'. It specifically dealt with not treating abstention votes the same as a "No" vote.
2. 2008 - A document to "codify" the rules around the TB was created and approved by TB. This document was not meant to "change" any rules and was only to "quantify" what the already agreed upon rules for TB were.
3. Some time later it was noted that the document had accidentally misrepresented what the 2005 motion stated.
If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.
So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.
Dec 30, 2010, 3:38 pm
#36
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,925
If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.
So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.
So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.
They prefer to be able to block changes by requiring a higher number of "yes" votes.
Dec 30, 2010, 4:11 pm
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Help me to get this right.
1. 2005 - A motion to change how voting would be tallied was passed. This motion stated 'only "Yes" and "No" votes will be considered when calculating whether a vote passes or fails'. It specifically dealt with not treating abstention votes the same as a "No" vote.
2. 2008 - A document to "codify" the rules around the TB was created and approved by TB. This document was not meant to "change" any rules and was only to "quantify" what the already agreed upon rules for TB were.
3. Some time later it was noted that the document had accidentally misrepresented what the 2005 motion stated.
If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.
So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.
1. 2005 - A motion to change how voting would be tallied was passed. This motion stated 'only "Yes" and "No" votes will be considered when calculating whether a vote passes or fails'. It specifically dealt with not treating abstention votes the same as a "No" vote.
2. 2008 - A document to "codify" the rules around the TB was created and approved by TB. This document was not meant to "change" any rules and was only to "quantify" what the already agreed upon rules for TB were.
3. Some time later it was noted that the document had accidentally misrepresented what the 2005 motion stated.
If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.
So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.
Bruce
Dec 30, 2010, 4:22 pm
#38
Moderator, Marriott Bonvoy & FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: McKinney, TX, USA
Programs: United Silver; AA Plat/2MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Hilton Gold
Posts: 11,727
I do understand what you are saying and don't necessarily disagree. But based on comments in this thread and looking back at the 2008 threads, it seemed pretty clear that the TB rules "codification" wasn't meant to change anything. It was only meant to put down in writing what the processes and rules were.
Dec 30, 2010, 8:27 pm
#39
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
If my summary above is correct, then it seems to me that the 2005 passed motion and the 2008 TB intention to make no changes should trump any unintended and/or accidental changes that were made.
So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.
So basically, an error in the TB document has been found. Fix it and if there are person(s) that want to actually CHANGE the 2005 motion, then a current motion should be crafted and submitted.
Dec 31, 2010, 6:21 am
#40
Flyertalk Evangelist and Moderator: Coupon Connection and Travel Products
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milton, GA USA
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum Elite, Hyatt Discoverist, Radisson Elite
Posts: 19,040
Except that this motion does not return things to the way it was in 2005... it puts a 5 vote minimum (voting "Yes" or "No") in order for a motion to pass.
I would much prefer to see it go back to the way it was in 2005; especially considering that there appears to have been no discussion to actually change that policy when the 2008 rules were codified.
I would much prefer to see it go back to the way it was in 2005; especially considering that there appears to have been no discussion to actually change that policy when the 2008 rules were codified.
Dec 31, 2010, 8:30 am
#41
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,107
FYI - I voted Yes this morning.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Dec 31, 2010, 1:30 pm
#42
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
Motion failed
On 31 Dec 2010, the TalkBoard failed to pass 4-5:
Moved by jackal and seconded by Markie:
The TalkBoard recommends that the TalkBoard Guidelines be amended as follows:
Section 4, paragraph C, sub-paragraph ii be replaced with the following text:
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.
Section 4, paragraph C, sub-paragraph vii be replaced with the following text:
A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote, but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’
Voting Yes: Cholula, jackal, Markie, SkiAdcock
Voting No: B747-437B, bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Spiff
Moved by jackal and seconded by Markie:
The TalkBoard recommends that the TalkBoard Guidelines be amended as follows:
Section 4, paragraph C, sub-paragraph ii be replaced with the following text:
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.
Section 4, paragraph C, sub-paragraph vii be replaced with the following text:
A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote, but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’
Voting Yes: Cholula, jackal, Markie, SkiAdcock
Voting No: B747-437B, bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Spiff
Dec 31, 2010, 1:41 pm
#43
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,925
It is actually immaterial as this change would have impacted very few, if any, votes.
A true reform would have been to return to the 2005 decision, which would have meant eliminating these words "but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’"
A true reform would have been to return to the 2005 decision, which would have meant eliminating these words "but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’"
Dec 31, 2010, 7:40 pm
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,194
It is actually immaterial as this change would have impacted very few, if any, votes.
A true reform would have been to return to the 2005 decision, which would have meant eliminating these words "but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’"
A true reform would have been to return to the 2005 decision, which would have meant eliminating these words "but no fewer than a majority of the TalkBoard members in office at the close of the voting period, vote ‘yes.’"
Dec 31, 2010, 7:48 pm
#45
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
So much for the spirit of consensus we were hearing about behind closed doors on TB. Thanks for trying and maybe another attempt to scale the heights of this issue can be mounted one day soon.