Because the vote very well might end up being 5-3 again 2 weeks from now. @:-) :td:

At the end of the date, each of the nine members of TB have an equal vote... three people voted "NO"; any one of them could have voted "YES" and this would be a non issue... or one of the five could have voted "NO" then the final non-cast vote would be irrelevant.

At the end of the day, the vote failed. It failed because three people voted no and one person did not vote. So, there are four people to blame for the vote failure. It is unfair to blame one person who did not vote.

If I were the non-voter, I might not want to say how I would vote right now based on the "attacks" that have happened here. One way to find out is to place the motion up for vote again; stop talking about a "wasted two weeks" and just vote already... or let it go.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with that. The people who voted no did so based on research and their conscience. The person who didn't vote fell asleep and acted in violation of TalkBoard procedures. The people who voted properly who did their job are not on the same level as the person who failed at their job.

That's my counsel as for something not absolutely hypercritical to the working of TB this matter has received a disproportionate amount of attention. Move on.

Agreed ^

Simple and direct question: What Talkboard procedure did this person violate? As I understand it, choosing to NOT vote is not an issue unless three consecutives votes are missed.

Moreover, a TB member can choose not to vote as many times as he/she wishes if he posts a notification in advance.

Which didn't happen

That seems to imply it's not acceptable to inadvertently miss a vote.

OK, then we have one-third of an issue. :)

MSPeconomist herself recognizes that missing the vote was a problem. Otherwise, why would she have apologized? We can probably drop the debate over whether that was all right!

I'm ready to walk away from this matter entirely. The horse has been beaten well beyond death. It's no longer recognizable as a horse.

Bruce

The issue of the "non-vote" is getting mixed up and thrown/blown all out of proportion.....

It's really very simple-

1. A TB member votes "yes"
2. A TB member votes "no"
3. A TB member "abstains"
4. A TB member doesn't vote because they (for whatever reason) missed the voting deadline
5. A TB member doesn't vote because they didn't want to vote

---

1. Acceptable
2. Acceptable
3. Acceptable-tho there should be a reason given (i.e. some sort of conflict of interest) and the reason should be made public
4. Not acceptable
5. Not acceptable

---
What happened was item #4 and imho, if the member wants to explain how they would have voted had they in fact voted, that's up to them but if not, again imho, it should be left at that and it's time to move on either by TB re-submitting the motion if they believe they will have enough votes for the motion to pass of let it die

It's the tail end of the horse.

It died a few days ago. We're beating the corpse.
Better yet! :)

Bruce