Wow, all this sound and fury, despite the fact that it was already mentioned on the thread I'd be do-ing this weekend. Thanks to those that highlighted that by the way - now I'm hot off the plane, feeling a little tender, and reading much comment and speculation - some of it entirely off base BTW, but I guess that hasn't stopped anyone on the forum in the past :D Thanks to everyone for their patience!

So anyway, for what it's worth (since I'm sure many of you will cherry pick out the bits which support your particular black helicopter version of Why I Killed the Motion (TM) ;)), here is my explanation of why I abstained. Since I did abstain, and it's a done deal in the matter, I don't see a lot of point getting into further debate about it, or trying to argue with people who believe that what I did was wrong. I'm confident that I did the right thing, and did the only thing I could live with and be true to myself as a TB member.

I abstained on this vote. I believe this was my first abstention in a year of being on TB - rightly or wrongly, I've always tried to avoid abstaining and vote in one way or another. At the same time, this motion presented me with problems. I had seconded the last motion, because as I said at the time, given the amount of discussion about the subject, I believed a vote was warranted. When I seconded it, I was in the unusual position of not knowing if I would vote yes or no - I simply believed that we needed to bring it to a vote. In the end, I voted yes, although I was unsure if the time was quite yet, I decided to give VX the benefit of the doubt. Following the failure of that motion, I was actually rather surprised at the lack of reaction - after all the fuss, it didn't seem that important after all, as its failure barely registered! Kind of like this time, when the people commenting on it are the TB watchers, with very little comment from those who are actually interested in the VX forum!

Re-voting the issue following the election of the new TB was first raised during the election process and at that time, I indicated publicly that I would be unhappy with such an action. As NickB has so eloquently explained, such blatant politicking is not a feature of the UK system. In the event, my disquiet was ignored, and a motion was put forward and seconded. This left me in rather a difficult position. I saw the motion being put forward so quickly after the last vote as precedent setting, and not in a positive way. It's making TB more political, and less about thoughtful consideration about what is best for FT. It promotes a 'vote for me and I'll immediately try to overturn whatever you didn't like from the last TB session' mentality. Over time, TB has become more political, but this, for me, is one step too far, and moves us from an organisation which has the best interests of FT at heart to an organisation where we are more concerned about our own future re-elections - which IMHO is not a positive move. I felt if I voted yes to this motion, this would only encourage such behaviour in the future. To be true to me, and my vision of TB, I could not vote yes for this motion. I do not believe strongly enough that a VX forum is required NOW to overlook the other issues this motion generated, none of which are positive for the future of the TB system.

So that left me two options - a no vote or to abstain. After much thought, I realised an abstention exactly represented my position on this motion, because I couldn't vote yes, and I didn't want to vote no. Indeed, I didn't really want to participate in the vote at all - and that is my idea of what an abstention can represent. So I cast my ballot to abstain.

Thank you, Jenbel. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me.

And yet it was ultimately your politicking that prevented the members from getting a forum that they overwhelmingly desired approved. I'm sure your voting record will speak for itself next election cycle as to who engages in political games and who truly votes in the interest of the members.

That was a bit of change for you, wasn't it? Since joining TalkBoard you have made 8 motions and seconded 2 others -- and never once voted against any of these (or abstained).

I am going to presume that you gave VX the benefit of the doubt because you thought it would be good for FlyerTalk. Is it no longer so?


Indeed, that should be the only criteria for your vote on any issue. I always thought that this motion was not good for FT -- at least not yet. Yet you apparently did think it was and then decided it was not.

But in real life terms, you had no choice but to participate in the ballot. If you voted yes, it would have passed. By voting no, or abstaining, you caused the motion to fail.

'Not that important after all'?
 

What are you expecting, exactly?

It's possible that some of us, who are extremely interested in, and supportive of, a VX forum, take the approach of voicing our opinions as thoughtfully as we can, then wait for the outcome and move on.

It didn't even occur to me that sharing my negative reaction would somehow be constructive. Isn't it obvious how the supporters of the forum would feel about the outcome, given the input they provided?

But if it's reaction you want, I'll say that this whole things makes me sad. We'll just watch -- again -- as someone goes away and establishes yet another board away from FT dedicated to a specific airline, resulting in the highest value information exchange occurring somewhere else.

But we'll have less 'forum clutter.' :(

I had no idea that there was such a vast difference in the way that Americans and Brits (and apparently other former colonies) approached politics. This has been a very educational thread.

In the past, here on FlyerTalk, we have always taken the stand that if you don't like the way things are going, you should do something about it, like run for TalkBoard yourself or support, and campaign for, folks who you believe will do a better job. Now I guess we will have to remember, that, if we want change, we shouldn't elect anybody from the UK. ;)

Harsh (even with the smiley), but I think this will be a campaign question I will pose to candidates next year. And I will not vote for anyone who considers anything but the issue on the table. Other voters may feel differently.

Jenbel explained herself with crystal clarity. I happen to feel the same way, and I thought I explained myself more than adequately as well.

You are free to disagree, as most of the TB members did. But ignoring her explanation and continuing to argue as if those reason did not exist or are irrelevant will get you nowhere. You need to face the objection directly, first by understanding it then by accommodating it somehow.

Let me try one more time to explain it. Anybody here can correct me if I misstate anything. Jenbel believes that re-voting this issue so quickly was bad for FT. Therefore she couldn't approve the proposal at this time. She absolutely followed the criterion of what is best for FT. She has a broad view of what "best for FT" means, she disagrees with you on the re-voting issue, and in her opinion that disagreement trumped her agreement on the initial question of creating the forum.

I would have gone all the way to voting no, but I certainly understand Jenbel's decision to abstain. Did the preceding paragraph adequately explain it, even though you still disagree?

Do you really mean that the ends justify the means in all situations? If TB members are in every case supposed to disregard the process by which proposals are made, I can foresee some serious damage to the TB as an institution and therefore to FT.

Most TB members didn't see any such potential damage in this case. If they had, I'm confident that they would have voted no on the proposal or at least abstained. You wouldn't want them to deny the opportunity to consider that aspect in every future case, would you?

I think I was pretty clear in my viewpoint and it likely isn't going to change. Other voters may feel differently.

nsx, I guess I am just a bit confused about this whole "it is a bad thing for TalkBoard to revisit one of its decisions" things.

TB has done so repeatedly, and I have never heard of anybody objecting to that -- not even Jenbel.

Even in the UK, I imagine that Parliament does not feel bound by previous decisions. I certainly would not have expected Tony Blair, when he took office, to urge the Commons not to reverse anything which was passed during Margaret Thatcher's time.

Let me get this straight... even the Moderator of the forum in which VX is currently discussed feels that it needs its own forum? Hopefully this wrong decision by the TB will be remembered during the next election process.

Thank you.

I don't know whether Jenbel would agree with that summation, but it certainly nicely sums up my feelings.

I posted in favor of this forum the last go-around, and did so not because I have terribly strong feelings about the issue but because someone I respect a great deal asked me to consider doing so if I agreed with the proposal.

However, given the reasons so aptly stated by nsx in this thread, it appeared to me unseemly and uncivil to either post in favor or be supportive of those who might vote in favor this time. Those sorts of considerations are indeed part of the context for "what change" as several have tried to say.

After an appropriate amount of time has past and perhaps there are what might be perceived as different motivations, I would be happy to likely post in favor again.

But to me, what I view as civility and mutual respect in a community (as opposed to a lobbying and power-politics as too often too much of FT has seemed to have sadly become) will always trump everything -- otherwise we are on our way to not having community (just various "constituencies" instead -- a very different notion), and I know that this idea of community is important to many folks including members of the TalkBoard who have passionately spoken on the issue and threats to it.

Therefore I am grateful that Jenbel used such good judgment and used the tools available to her to make a nuanced, thought-through, respectful response to this situation.

As I wrote earlier, this is more a matter that it doesn't feel right to me. I accept that it feels just fine to others, and that they are entitled to vote on that basis.

I have trouble adequately putting my disquietude into words, and those words would never persuade one to feel others than he does. I was instead hoping that the words could convey the sincerity of the feeling, so that you could fully respect the integrity Jenbel's decision even though you disagree with it. Politics is often poisoned by incorrect imputation of bad intent, and the TB certainly does not need any of that.

I am 100% certain that all TB members voted the best interest of FT as they saw it. I hope all the TB members have the same level of certainty about their colleagues. That's an important foundation for working together.

For me life on TalkBoard is pretty simple. I will listen to every argument on every side and then decide whether or not a proposal has merit. If a proposal has merit, I will vote "Yes". If proposal has no merit (and thus far no one has presented an idea that had no merit) I will vote "No", and there will be no ifs, ands or buts.

The rest of it is all politics.

This one was a slam dunk--the users want a reasonable airline forum, so we give them their forum. The clutter argument is just plain silly. I would be willing to bet that 90% of us look at only those arguments that interest us anyway. What difference could it possibly make if we ignored one more?