Since we are discussing the matter, I would chime in that I believe our Trade Approval Process works as it is written and there is no need for any further amendments.
Going back through league archives, the trade approval process has been a long-standing issue. In December 2013 to January 2014, a controversy emerged over a trade between the Reds and the White Sox. There were two things at issue: length of time on the FGM board without approval and approval of a trade that had three vetoes (two of the vetoes posted had no explanation).
In October of 2014, in a trade between the Phillies and the Rockies, the issue of approval surfaced again. This time it concerned minimum approvals--the trade received 4 approvals and two vetoes. The Trade Committee had 7 members and a TC member was involved in the trade, so the trade was disapproved by the Commissioner because it did not receive a minimum of 5 approvals (and not because it received 2 vetoes). The reasons for a veto were also questioned, with the main objection being that GMs should be able to manage their teams the way they want.
The current Trade Approval Process was adopted in February 2015 by consensus of the Trade Committee. It has effectively dealt with the issue of timely approval with the use of the 48 hour window. While setting a five vote approval as goal for the Trade Committee, it has been established that a two vote minimum can be used as a viable approval standard if there is only one veto. It has also been established that two vetoes constitute an automatic disapproval and required a posting of a rationale for a given veto. Of course, what constitutes a fair trade, and why a veto is rendered, will continue to be at issue because the perspective of a TC member is a variable that cannot be standardized.
The disputed trade referenced is one between the Reds and the Phillies. That misunderstanding
centered on the difference between a disapproval and an invalidation. Even though a second veto was posted 24 hours after the 48 hour window expired (along with an approval), the trade was not vetoed. It simply did not get the necessary votes, for or against, in the established time frame and was moved to the Invalid Transactions section. The trade was left on the board for 60 hours before any action was taken, and it could have been reposted if either GM had so desired. Although my explanation at the time was dismissed as spin at the time, it nonetheless, points to the implementation and whether the process works. Without seeking to stir up any old arguments, I would offer that we have established a working model for other leagues to follow, and after using it this past season, we have demonstrated that it works.
In regards to activity, there are a variety of times when I send PM's to the Trade Committee members when there is a trade on the board. There have been other times when participating GMs send a similar PM to all Trade Committee members to garner the necessary votes.
