My recommendation is that TalkBoard members develop a passion for proposals they put forward. If you are not involved in the process you cannot make good rules or well represent your constituency.

Personally I would like to see a change in the system that forbids TalkBoard members from voting until a specified period of open discussion with the general membership has elapsed.

TalkBoard members don't have to participate, or even read the discussion, but it will reduce the Star Chamber effect we currently have.

Voting, then inviting discussion, is simply extending the middle finger to the people you have been elected to represent.

Can't argue with that.

I seconded the motion to put it on the table for a vote.

At that time I hadn't really formulated my response to the motion.

I voted in favor of it but without any real conviction one way or the other.

IMO, it's not necessary to be passionate to either second or to vote on a motion.

How can a vote without passion or conviction be representative of anything? It sounds like voting on a coin flip. I trust I'm misunderstanding you in some profound way and apologize in advance.

Let's say a TB member makes a motion to vote on X or Y. And the vote is seconded and advanced to a motion.

And many other TB members do not feel nearly as strongly as the person who puts forward the motion.

A vote is required nevertheless.

Unless one chooses to abstain which is really a No vote in disguise.

So it is possible to vote on TB issues without passion.

A recent TB motion to merge the LH forum with the Swiss TravelClub was passed unanimously. But there was a very limited discussion in this forum.

And the passion was missing form both sides of the discussion.

But this very necessary motion was implemented nevertheless.

Not all motions are associated with the passion that surrounded the OMNI issue.

I'm not speaking for Cholula, but to answer your question, birdstrike, I think that a person can second a motion because he or she thinks that is what would be best for the members of FlyerTalk - they can even vote on it as well. But they don't have to be passionate about it - it's possible to represent the people who elected you, even if you personally disagree with something.

Example - Let's say that I hate every aspect of the SPAM & OMNI forums (which I don't) and there was a proposal for us to remove them from FlyerTalk. Even though I may be passionately against those forums (which, again, I'm not), I would recognize that the overall members were pro-SPAM & pro-OMNI & thereforw would vote to keep them.

I didn't say anything about seconding motions. One can second a motion, or even propose one, because he or she thinks the vote on the motion would be best for the member of FlyerTalk without necessarily agreeing with the proposed motion. I have no problem with that.

An adbstination is emphatically not a "no" vote in disguise, though politically it can be so used.

With respect to LH/Swiss: The TalkBoard may have realized that merging the LH forum with the Swiss TravelClub had little impact on FlyerTalk and so passed the motion unanimously, but I trust each member thought through the ramifications, and took input from the membership, such as they were.

It was obvious that the recent vote on Omni post counts would be contentious. As such it should have been impossible for TalkBoard members to propose and vote on such a measure before thinking through the ramifications. It should have further been impossible to vote on such a contentious issue before allowing the membership to voice their opinions and consider that input before voting.

I have no problem with the proposal itself or the second, per se.

I do have problems with voting before a call for comments is made.

IMHO, Talkboard members were elected to represent the community, not because they were representative of the community, if that makes any sense.

The merging of the forums though had huge potential impact on the users of those forums, and that was why the forums were consulted shortly after it was raised in the private forum. There were historical reasons for that - I may not have cared passionately about the end result, but I did care passionately that the forum users were consulted/informed about the process since I'd gone through the merging of the AF/KLM forums as a member. By the time it came to a vote, we'd already had a lot of feedback from members of both forums. At the same time, despite potentially have a huge impact on them, it didn't really generate the heat and light of the OMNI proposal.

And yes, we were elected to represent the community - but at the same time, I won't vote in a way I don't believe in. I'm usually willing to listen - but I know there have been one or two ideas proposed in the private forum which would have earned a straight away yes or no vote from me without hesitation.

but that is all quite far off the topic of the thread, and I hope the mods forgive me for straying a little