Motion Passed: "Amend TalkBoard Guidelines: Requirements for Motions to Pass"
Jul 29, 2011, 10:49 pm
#31
Moderator: Hyatt Gold Passport & Star Alliance
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London, UK
Programs: UA-1K 3MM/HY- LT Globalist/BA-GGL/GfL
Posts: 12,090
For those (like Markie) who wish to see the abstain option go away entirely, how about supporting this proposal to "fix" the meaning of the word "abstain" (as well as adding in the useful language to require a majority of TalkBoard to support any proposal) and then proposing a separate motion to delete the "abstain" option? Then we can be sure to at least have something that makes sense, regardless of how that later vote goes.
Jul 30, 2011, 12:55 am
#32
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,624
Afraid not this time; cannot vote for something that is as wrong as what we've got now. If this were to pass - as it well might - the eye will go off the ball and the issue will quietly go away, whilst members of TB Abstain and continue to claim 'well I didn't vote against the proposal' when challenged. Making more bad rules isn't a real fix for a bad rule.
Reasonable people differ on whether one should vote no on half a loaf when the full loaf is not obtainable. It's principle vs. the practical. Idealists vote for what they want, and pragmatists vote for what they can get.
Aug 2, 2011, 11:23 am
#33
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: DTW/FNT
Programs: Delta (nee NW), Hilton Diamond. IHG (PT)
Posts: 4,823
The simple way to do this is establish a quorum for a minimum number of votes and then set a 2/3 or simple majority of votes requirement.
Bob H
Bob H
Aug 2, 2011, 5:26 pm
#34
Moderator: American AAdvantage, Signatures
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, National Exec, AA EXP Emeritus
Posts: 9,765
In my opinion, an abstention shouldn't count as a vote. If 12 members are voting on a topic, with 7 yeas, 3 nays and 2 abstentions, that motion passes with 70%--at least that's the way it should be. A TB member wishing to oppose something should vote in the negative; an abstention is not the same, and should not count the same.
Aug 2, 2011, 8:01 pm
#35
Moderator Hilton Honors, Travel News, West, The Suggestion Box, Smoking Lounge & DiningBuzz
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: Honors Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, National Exec Elite
Posts: 36,027
Indeed. That's how the language works (except in TalkBoard land 
) - an abstention is an abstention from the act of voting and if you don't vote you can't count what you didn't do as a vote. @:-)
Exactly. This needs to be written in large bold letters!
Two other ideas:
a) Amend the rules so that every TB member is presumed -- absent an explicit vote contrary -- to be voting for any motion. This would flush out some interesting stuff....
b) In an internet forum, and particularly one where the vote windows can be sooooo long, one assumes that all members are in fact "present" and there is a "quorum" therefore. Then make the no/no-go margin x percentage those who vote.
) - an abstention is an abstention from the act of voting and if you don't vote you can't count what you didn't do as a vote. @:-)
If 12 members are voting on a topic, with 7 yeas, 3 nays and 2 abstentions, that motion passes with 70%--at least that's the way it should be. A TB member wishing to oppose something should vote in the negative; an abstention is not the same, and should not count the same.
Two other ideas:
a) Amend the rules so that every TB member is presumed -- absent an explicit vote contrary -- to be voting for any motion. This would flush out some interesting stuff....
b) In an internet forum, and particularly one where the vote windows can be sooooo long, one assumes that all members are in fact "present" and there is a "quorum" therefore. Then make the no/no-go margin x percentage those who vote.
Aug 2, 2011, 11:25 pm
#36
Moderator: Hyatt Gold Passport & Star Alliance
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London, UK
Programs: UA-1K 3MM/HY- LT Globalist/BA-GGL/GfL
Posts: 12,090
Aug 3, 2011, 12:03 am
#37
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,624
Aug 3, 2011, 7:17 am
#38
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I am no fan of this motion and would much prefer a motion to "establish a quorum for a minimum number of votes and then set a 2/3" majority of votes requirement for a motion to pass.
Aug 3, 2011, 12:07 pm
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
Quorum is built into this proposal, as a motion can't pass with less than 5 'yes' votes.
Aug 3, 2011, 10:42 pm
#40
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: 23,195
The effect would be a quorum of 5 TalkBoard members required to pass any motion (all five would have to support the motion, of course). That would actually be more stringent than the current procedure; right now, a motion could pass with 2 yeses, 1 no, and 6 non-voting members. Actually, come to think of it, a motion could pass with 1 yes and 8 non-voting members.
Aug 4, 2011, 4:35 am
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Yes, but amongst the items which I had failed to communicate earlier in this thread is the following: I prefer a quorum requirement that is greater than that which is part of this motion.
Aug 4, 2011, 5:05 am
#42
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: 23,195
Would you propose something stricter than that? 2/3 of 8 or even all 9 TalkBoard members?
Aug 5, 2011, 8:34 am
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 10,515
So, after a lot of thinking on this one, I think I'm going to vote against it.
The reason I'm not supportive of it is becaue of the 5-2-2 factor. If 2 people are voting no & 2 people who are participating can't commit to a yes vote, then I don't think a motion should pass.
It should take a solid commitment to change FlyerTalk.
The reason I'm not supportive of it is becaue of the 5-2-2 factor. If 2 people are voting no & 2 people who are participating can't commit to a yes vote, then I don't think a motion should pass.
It should take a solid commitment to change FlyerTalk.
Aug 5, 2011, 9:17 am
#44
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: Gold, plat, diamond and more
Posts: 3,360
Personally- if using FT lingo- I may consider this motion a no-brainer.
If only TB could use as much time to develop FT - in terms of forums, changes that affects users etc- as knitpicking I for one would be happy.
If only TB could use as much time to develop FT - in terms of forums, changes that affects users etc- as knitpicking I for one would be happy.
Aug 5, 2011, 9:34 am
#45
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
So, after a lot of thinking on this one, I think I'm going to vote against it.
The reason I'm not supportive of it is becaue of the 5-2-2 factor. If 2 people are voting no & 2 people who are participating can't commit to a yes vote, then I don't think a motion should pass.
It should take a solid commitment to change FlyerTalk.
The reason I'm not supportive of it is becaue of the 5-2-2 factor. If 2 people are voting no & 2 people who are participating can't commit to a yes vote, then I don't think a motion should pass.
It should take a solid commitment to change FlyerTalk.