nsx

Moved by nsx and seconded by jackal:


This vote will close on August 8, 11 at 9:27 PM Pacific Time or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:
The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback in this thread.

A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

bhatnasx

I'm planning on voting against this motion.

I think FlyerTalk is generally a wonderful place and that it should require 2/3rds of the peope participating (whether it be yes, no, abstain) to vote yes to change it. So, an abstain is effectively a no, albeit the "coward's no" as some have come to refer to it. If someone believes in change, then vote for the motion. If not, then vote no. I think that an abstain is a "coward's" no - but I'd rather it be a coward's no than a cowards's yes when it comes to changing something on FlyerTalk.

If true reform is needed, let's just get rid of abstain...although I don't think reform is needed in this matter.

nsx

I don't understand your assertion, bhatnasx. If this proposal passes, an abstention will become mathematically equivalent to missing the vote. An abstention will not count as a yes vote. Currently it counts as the mathematically equivalent of a No vote, and I believe that is unconventional and misleading to the membership.

If you favor elimination of the Abstain option you must admit that this proposal takes you part of the way to your goal. Again, it merely makes abstention count as if you didn't vote, which comports with common sense. Unlike the status quo.

Furthermore this proposal adds a protection against votes in which a significant number of TB members are absent. Currently a 4-2 vote with 3 non-voters would pass.

I submit that this proposal is an improvement in both these respects.

bhatnasx

Ok - I was misunderstanding things...

So, is the only real change that a 5-2-2 would count, whereas previously it wouldn't?

I still think that if 2 are "on the fence" or choosing not to vote positively for something, then it may not be something that's worth passing.

Gotta think on it more...

nsx

Correct, because Abstain currently = No. I think 5-2-2 is a highly positive vote, enough to pass.

It would pass under current rules if the other 3 do not select Abstain but are actually absent from the vote. The current rule is "A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’ " There is no minimum of 5 votes in the current rule. That would be added by this proposal.

nsx

Yes that's the only difference anyone is likely to see.

However the proposal also adds a safety net to prevent absurdities like passing a 2-1 vote when the other 6 were somehow totally absent.

nsx

Reasonable people disagree on whether a 5-2-2 vote should pass.

However I expect Abstain votes to become much less common if this proposal passes. Deprived of the option to vote "Soft No", TalkBoard members who are on the fence or who do not want to take the time to study the issue might step up and vote plain old "No". Reducing the number of abstentions is another benefit of this change, IMHO.

I predict that this change will completely eliminate instances of more than one abstention unless the abstentions are for conflict of interest reasons.

tcook052

A sensible compromise IMHO to more clearly define the TB Guidelines.

FWIW I was one who believed under the old fuzzy wording that casting an abstention constituted particpation in the ballot and as such absentions had to be counted in the majority. This rewording take away that ambiguity and so gets a ^ from this pedantic poster.

rehoult

I agree entirely. In a real life setting, someone with a conflict can sit there and just not vote at the end of the day and everyone knows they were there. Online, someone not voting looks like they were absent, but under the current rules they can't have their name marked as 'abstained' without it affecting the vote, and that doesn't seem right when the whole point of abstaining is that they are in conflict and shouldn't be allowed to affect the vote.

Also, using the abstain as a shielded 'no' vote is BS, and I'm glad this would be curtailed as well under the change. Don't want to take a side? Don't run for this, or any other, office.

tcook052

While I do see their purpose ultimately I'd like to see the abstention option done away with altogether as I also think TBers should be expected to form an opinion in the months most topics are tossed around and the weeks a ballot is open once a motion is made and seconded.

The next best thing IMHO would be to limit the number of abstentions each member can make per term.

Markie

This is the position I favour, and until this is on the ballot I will be voting No to other changes. The reasons you give are exactly those that I hold - don't stand if you don't have an opinion, and if you don't have an opinion I have a spare one I can lend you.

Dovster

This returns the situation to where it was previously. It had been "changed" when the Guidelines were rewritten but, according to what Kokonutz (who wrote them) it was never his intention that this change take place. That was the interepretation given to it by Gleff, who was TB President at the time.

To be clear, let me give all the possibilities and the results if this passes:

6 people vote "yes" -- the motion will pass under all circumstances.

5 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 2 or more abstain or do not participate.

4 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 3 or more abstain or do not particpate.

3 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 5 or more abstain or do not participate.

2 people vote "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless 6 or more abstain or do not participate.

1 person votes "yes" -- the motion will be defeated unless every other member of TalkBoard abstains or does not participate.

In real life, I only see this as having an impact when 5 vote yes and two or more abstain/don't participate and even that will be very rare.

lo2e

Dovster, I think you're forgetting that part of this new motion is this:

So your 4 yes, 3 yes, 2 yes, and 1 yes examples would NEVER pass if these rules are adopted.

Dovster

You are right, I did forget about that change.

Still, I doubt that those situations will ever come up.

DeaconFlyer

I thank nsx and jackal for following up on this issue. I urge the TB to vote Yes on this motion, as it clarifies ambiguous language and reverts the regulations to their intended interpretation.

I have not seen a convincing argument for why this motion should not be passed.