Markie

I'd be happy to second that motion, but agree with jackal that we won't get it past this TB.

ozstamps

Nive notes and 6 are thus needed to pass.

Common sense prevailed on yet another rmotion. It clearly had no need to be changed.

SkiAdcock

Really? So you're saying all the other years when abstentions didn't count as no were incorrect?

I think you need to edit your post to say 'in your opinion'. Since a # of other - including former TB members & also regular FT members - did think the change was appropriate (and one is probably kicking himself right not for not catching the change before the guidlines got voted upon ) , I don't think your 'clearly had no need' is accurate.

I talked to a lot of regular FT members: via PM, email & on the phone before casting my vote. Not one of them supported abstentions counting as a 'no', which is actually what the motion was about. Some didn't think abstentions should be allowed at all, but a # thought abstention was ok if used when there was a conflict of interest or someone was truly going to be on the road/couldn't do their research. None thought it appropriate if used as a way of casting no w/o being obvious about it.

BTW - before anyone says I 'coached' them, I did not do so. I sent them all links to the discussions on this forum, asked them if they had time to check them out, said I was struggling w/ my decision/the math/stats/outcomes & what it might affect, and simply asked for their input. I didn't try to steer them one way or the other. I also said if they didn't have time to respond to me that was ok. A # did respond, but some said due to the holiday they couldn't & wished me the best.

Cheers. Sharon

Jenbel

Sharon, thanks for the explanation.

Can those that voted no please explain why they voted against something which has been in place previously?

bdschobel

Obviously, I can't read anybody's mind, but I'll simply point out that voting no was effectively reinforcing the change made in 2008 (ignoring certain unlikely events). That's a reasonable position to take, even if the 2008 change did something unintended (as may have been the case).

Bruce

Jenbel

You could make that argument, but the 2008 vote was such a long involved process that it doesn't mean that everyone who voted in favour of the guidelines necessarily agreed with absolutely everything about them.

So now they've had to specifically endorse it, I'd really like to know why they think it's a better system than that which was in place between 2005 and 2008 and which was largely supported by the members who posted their opinions about it.

bdschobel

I'm really not taking sides on this (even though it may appear that I am), but the 2005, 2008 and 2010 voting systems are effectively equivalent if nearly all Talk Board members vote, as they usually do. The three systems produce differing results only with 2 or more abstentions. Unless that happens a lot, then we're making a lot of fuss about nothing.

Bruce

Spiff

I believe that we should retain the requirement for a supermajority for change and would not like it watered down, even to 5-2-2 = pass.

Dovster

Yet in 2005 you voted in favor of the motion which would have allowed even a 1-0-8 vote to pass. There were no negative results from the several years that the rule stood. Why the change of mind?

Spiff

In 5 years, I've come to appreciate that FlyerTalk for the most part is running quite well and that changing things should be via a true super-majority.

Dovster

Personally, I think that a super-majority should be reserved for issues of major importance and TB doesn't even touch those.

About the most controversial question it is liable to face is whether or not Iberia is going to get its own forum and whether or not Iberia does the foundations of FlyerTalk are not going to crumble.

Requiring a super-majority to approve a forum merely means that a minority can block it. If 5 members favor it, 2 oppose it, and 2 don't bother casting a ballot, the super-minority winds up making the decision.

bhatnasx

+1

As previously stated, I don't think that changes should be taken lightly. I also view casting a ballot, be it for Yes, No, or Abstain, as participating in the vote.

Dovster

If someone posts here saying that he does not want to get involved in this debate, do you view him as participating in the debate?

B747-437B

Sometimes the most honourable course of action is to not get involved. I'm not a fan of status quo abstain-means-no but I'm even less a fan of reducing the supermajority requirement. If I had to pick between them I'd probably abstain.

tcook052

Given your trio of abstentions in 2010 voting it's unsurprising you'd feel that way. Sometimes the most honourable course of action is to get involved, especially for a TB member.