None, but in essence you've been told that your vote and koko's vote mean less than 2 votes made by the outgoing TB members.

In trying not to be political, this sure did end up political.

I have very mixed feelings about this process and this outcome.

I respect Jenbel's decision and take her motivation for voting the way she did at her word.

That said, I have been involved in politics for my entire career at the local, state, federal and international level, from local library bond issues all the way to the EU harmonization process.

And at every single level all over the world I have watched first-hand as policies change after elections.

IME, even small shifts in elected bodies cause them to reconsider decisions both large and small. That is, after all, the entire point of the democratic process.

The position that led to this result brings so many questions in my mind that it's tough to know where to start. Are my motivations for making the motion in question here? Does anyone truly think I made this motion to disrespect the previous TB? That I (or any of the other TB members who voted for this proposal on its merits alone) have no civility or respect for the Flyertalk community? Seems silly to me, as I made this motion out of respect for the FT community that WANTS this forum. And why is there not a similar sense of discomfort for the previous TB's having voted on this matter at the very last moment during a lame-duck session literally during the election of the current TB?

But frankly none of these questions matter to the Flyertalkers who want and deserve this forum. To them, of the many questions this outcome and the reason for it brings to mind there is only one question that really matters at this point:

In the paradigm where one has to wait a certain amount of time before reversing, replacing or reconsidering a TB's previous motion out of respect for institutions and previous decisions how long should the FT posters who support this forum have to wait?

It is not about change per se: see post #104 above.
It seems to me that your reasoning implies that the end always justifies the means. While I admire Machiavelli's brilliance as a political thinker, I am not sure that I would wish to follow his prescriptions. :)
As the old joke goes: "un certain temps" :). It is a bit like asking how long one should mourn. It calls for tact and judgment rather than rules. Let the dust settle. The more one keeps agitating it, the longer it takes to settle.

Thank you!

That explains a lot. ;)

Absolutely not! It's just a matter on which different people have different reactions.

In hindsight, that was a bad move. I'm not sure that anyone non-clairvoyant could have foreseen the present situation, but if such a situation is forseeable I agree that the outgoing TB should defer to the new one.

I think I answered that earlier, speaking for myself only and as a non-TB member. About 6 months or until the program changes.

Were you the hold-out on the President vote? You know, the one where it sure seemed like a Talkboard member was not voting, and thus dragging the time window out?

Someone did it. I guess before we start screaming "politics," we'd better at least come out and own to what may or may not have just happened a few weeks ago.


You know, I'll elect someone from Mars if they took the kind of stand that Jenbel did. It was guaranteed to catch her flak, and she did it anyway. And explained the reasoning with remarkable clarity, not the "I'll vote my conscience when I claim it's not political" stuff that smacks very loudly of the antics of the current administration that we deal with in the US. Men and women of intellect and principle are far more useful to FT that poltico reactionaries who "follow their heart."

Regarding her actual vote, I applaud her reasoning. It sucks, because I'd have probably voted for the forum had it's creation not been politicized this closely after the election. By doing what she's done, she's hopefully set the table so that when the Men's forum is pitched next week or that the subject of moderation is breached that some modicum of thought is actually given to the outcome and whether wasting time on political moves has any chance of success.

I eagerly await the motions on a Men's forum and changing moderation so we can hear the cries of "politics."

God save the Queen, I say.

I am sorry, nsx, but the only responsibility I can see that I have as TalkBoard member is to carefully consider the motions at hand, listen to all of the input, and then vote "yes" or "no" based on my best understanding of the issues.

While others may see things differently, IMHO, decisions that require long, drug-out explanations are purely political and just make me nervous. If the general membership doesn't like my straight-forward approach, they can vote me out if I decide to run next time around. In the meantime, they are stuck with me and my honest and probably very predictable approach.

Wrong in your opinion. Certainly not wrong in the factual sense.

A wrong decision would be deciding that 1 + 1 = 3.

:eek: Just Say No!

;)

I'd say it's up to the membership to decide what is right/wrong and vote accordingly.

Other FT members may feel differently ;)

Indeed, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. But no one should claim that their opinion is a fact. @:-)

I'm not a fan of the drugged ones, either.

I don't find that Jenbel's reasoning was particularly intellectually difficult to follow. YMMV, of course.

Perhaps had she not been faced with a relatively simple political move to begin with, she would not have been required to vote in any fashion, much less explain it.

Sorry, Clue, but I honestly do not believe that there was anything political about koko's motion. He saw an opportunity to better serve the needs of the general membership and made a motion to do so because there was every reason to believe that the motion would pass.

For reasons that could not be anticipated, a vote was changed, and the motion failed. That does not change the good and honest intent of the motion, which was clearly in response to the need of the community we serve.

There is something to be said for thinking through the implications of a decision and for attempting to see things from the perspective of others as well as one's own rather than just relying on immediate, unreflective feelings. It seems to me rather simplistic to assume that thinking something through is more "political" than unreflective thought.

The Men's forum was last batted around a long time ago. Are you saying that such a proposal should be out of bounds? If so, why?

It would have been very easy to anticipate what was going to happen - all it needed was for me to be asked what I thought before the motion was made. Instead, apparently an incorrect assumption was made. Trying to pass that off as 'oh we couldn't possibly have known' is really disingenous - you would have known if you had asked. But you didn't ask :(