TalkBoard Topics - Soliciting feedback for upcoming TalkBoard meeting

The TalkBoard is having their second face-to-face meeting on April 23rd in LA and we would love to get some feedback on topics you would like to see us discuss. Our time together is limited so we might not be able to discuss all topics of interest, but we will do our best to get through as many of them as we can.

Thanks!

I just took a look at the last 90 days worth of threads in this forum, and just from looking at those it appears the sole function of the TalkBoard is to approve or disapprove creation of new forums.

I'd like to see you publicize, in the public forum, exactly what else you are doing, as it's not clear to the general membership what your function is, so members may not know what to ask.

There have been some recent threads in other forums indicating TalkBoard was not involved in the forum software change (involving how forums are marked as read), though one moderator has reported he was consulted on that. I'm guessing the recent Facebook linking also did not involve the TalkBoard, either.

My questions:

What is TalkBoard doing besides voting, or not voting, on the creation of new forums? Can one of you post a monthly summary of accomplishments for the members?

It should be noted for the record that all Talkboard members will NOT be attending the meeting in question.

The TalkBoard is having their second face-to-face meeting on April 23rd in LA

It should be noted for the record that all Talkboard members will NOT be attending the meeting in question.

I am very confused.

I guess my English is not good enough. Are you saying there is a TB meeting scheduled on 4/23/10 but no TBer will attend? How can such a meeting be face-to-face? :confused:

I expect that he means there will not be perfect attendance of all Talkboard members.

I expect that he means there will not be perfect attendance of all Talkboard members.

That is correct. I believe that a majority of TBers will be there though.

It should be noted for the record that all Talkboard members will NOT be attending the meeting in question.

Does that mean you won't be there? Will they be discussing a major topic you raised during the TalkBoard elections? I have not seen anything on the public forums about this. Can you update the membership on the status of this proposal you made:


That said, I am very strongly opposed to permitting people to hold multiple offices on FlyerTalk. Elected TalkBoard representatives should not also hold office as appointed Moderators. There is an inherent conflict of interest when the same entities hold both Legislative and Judicial power.

Does that mean you won't be there? Will they be discussing a major topic you raised during the TalkBoard elections? I have not seen anything on the public forums about this. Can you update the membership on the status of this proposal you made:

I will not be there. Indeed, without disclosing who will or will not be there, it unfortunately appears that only two of the non-moderator TB members will be in attendance.

Unfortunately, this proposal is a non-starter as 4/9 TalkBoard members are also Moderators and the remaining 5/9 votes would be insufficient to pass this motion even if there were unanimous support from the non-Moderators. {Rhetorical comment removed by moderator}

I too am wondering TB is becoming a lot less relevant in the age of Internet Brands. Since Randy says stuff like that ugly gray thingie about Facebook is now out of his bailiwick, maybe TB should take on some tasks related to liaison with IB, even if IB hasn't asked. After all, it's the membership's participation that makes the site valuable.

I too am wondering TB is becoming a lot less relevant in the age of Internet Brands. Since Randy says stuff like that ugly gray thingie about Facebook is now out of his bailiwick, maybe TB should take on some tasks related to liaison with IB, even if IB hasn't asked. After all, it's the membership's participation that makes the site valuable.

FWIW, I believe a rep from IB will be there as well. Also, FWIW, I'm sad to say I lean towards agreeing with you. TB still does (and can) have a place, I think - but I also think think that the place & function may change in the future. Definitely a point to bring up in our meeting...

I'd like to see discussion of opening/closing forums since that still is in the purview of TB. There's a lot of 'we'll know it when we see it' etc for forum openings & similar for closings.

FWIW - I have no problem w/ a TB member also being a moderator.

Cheers.

I'd like to see discussion of opening/closing forums since that still is in the purview of TB. There's a lot of 'we'll know it when we see it' etc for forum openings & similar for closings.

+1

I'd like to see discussion of opening/closing forums since that still is in the purview of TB. There's a lot of 'we'll know it when we see it' etc for forum openings & similar for closings.

Any discussion of a new forum invariably involves discussion as to what kind of posts belong in that forum. Discussion as to which forum a post belongs in is a subject for moderators. Ergo, it may not be discussed by TalkBoard as it constitutes "discussion of moderation". It seriously hampers the ability for the TalkBoard to discuss anything or to do anything other than rubber stamp the most obvious proposals.

I really don't things are as doom and gloom as one of my colleagues seems to imply.

The TalkBoard has nothing to do with moderation. Most of the items we discuss have nothing to do with moderation. I suppose if one tries hard enough, one can try to introduce moderation into just about any topic. However, that's rather unnecessary and simply takes away from the advisory role of TB.

The biggest deficiency I see in TB's activity is the lack of any structure to promote closure of marginal forums. Only the obvious candidates seem to get action. Perhaps that's a good thing; probably it's not.

I wish I had a good solution to offer, but I don't.

In my opinion, FT is functioning very, very well. I recently reduced my moderation to a single forum in an effort to continue my practice of reading each and every post on the forum. I haven't run the numbers, but I'm sure that the number of posts per day is 5 to 10 times what it was several years ago. People are getting more value from FT than ever, and the traffic proves it.

As far as I am aware there's not a single subject that has been raised by the current TalkBoard that's gotten any pushback. Furthermore, any past discipline issues with members of the TalkBoard have involved Randy, there's not moderation run amok as it were. And as far as I know, there have been only two instances ever where this has been implicated, one of which predates my tenure on TalkBoard (and I've served since 2003).

If any member or Talkboard member has concerns about what's in or out of bounds, they can certainly talk with me about it, I'm happy to help however I can. But the only rules are that the site's rules (aka TOS) apply to TalkBoard members as well as general members.

nsx, I'd love to hear your thoughts on closure/consolidation, it would be great if you'd drive a project to analyze that! ^

As far as I am aware there's not a single subject that has been raised by the current TalkBoard that's gotten any pushback.

However this TB and the previous one have been trying hard for consensus prior to formal proposals and votes, meaning that anything we end up doing should have broad approval. That's at least what I've been trying to promote, and it seems to be working. Besides, the earlier TBs cleared out the entire thicket of difficult issues!

I counted questions from 3 posters that are not Talk Board members over the last week. This is rather sad. Maybe the bulk of FT just doesn't care what the Talk Board is doing. I probably won't vote in the next Talk Board election unless I see better communication from the Talk Board about what you are doing.

I counted questions from 3 posters that are not Talk Board members over the last week. This is rather sad. Maybe the bulk of FT just doesn't care what the Talk Board is doing. I probably won't vote in the next Talk Board election unless I see better communication from the Talk Board about what you are doing.

Tom:

Speaking personally, not for the TB or as a Mod, I'd like to say that I too am disappointed. You may recall that I suggested the TB do pre-arranged online chats but there was not great excitement for the idea. I hope that the rest of the TB will agree that we need to be taking a more active role in FT, although our powers are somewhat limited - to put it mildly.

I counted questions from 3 posters that are not Talk Board members over the last week. This is rather sad. Maybe the bulk of FT just doesn't care what the Talk Board is doing. I probably won't vote in the next Talk Board election unless I see better communication from the Talk Board about what you are doing.

How is it that communication from TalkBoard is a problem? I can't recall any posed question that has been ignored. :confused:

While I do not speak for TalkBoard, I definitely do not ignore questions/issues/threads herein...

How is it that communication from TalkBoard is a problem? I can't recall any posed question that has been ignored. :confused:

Look at the threads in the TalkBoard forum for the last 90 days. The only thing I see there is discussion about creating forums. What else are you doing? If members don't know what you're doing, how can they ask questions? I don't have any questions about forum creation.

All I see is discussion about creating or not creating forums. Is that all the TalkBoard is doing? Do we need Talk Board solely for that issue? Are we voting candidates in just to deal with forum creation?

I'm a long time member and I don't know what you're doing.

I can only go by what is posted publicly in the Talk Board forum and that would lead one to believe the only thing you deal with is creating new forums (or not creating new forums, as many requests do not result in new forums).

Does Talk Board have any responsibilities besides forum creation? Can whatever other responsibilities you have, and decisions you make (if any), be communicated to the members on a regular basis?

How is it that communication from TalkBoard is a problem? I can't recall any posed question that has been ignored. :confused:

While I do not speak for TalkBoard, I definitely do not ignore questions/issues/threads herein...
Because many of you don't talk to us at all - there are a number of threads which have started where only the same handful of TB members are speaking with us or engaging with us, while the rest are MIA.

The 'oh but we're listening' starts to become unbelievable when there's no verification of that. At times, it's like shouting into a well, with only 3-4 TB members regularly engaging with those who elected them. In all my years of TB watching, I've never seen a TB which engages less with the membership.

Now it's great if you are actually discussing your own initiatives behind the scenes - on one of the TBs I was on, we went very quiet for a while while we tussled internally with the revision to the guidelines. But there's been no indication that that is what is actually happening.

And Spiff - you are one of the current TB members who does regularly engage with us. And it's great that you do.

There are clearly different levels of participation on the public side of the Talk Board forum. I checked how many threads each Talk Board member has posted in since January 1 (not total posts, but just number of TalkBoard Forum threads they have participated in, including this thread):

21 bhatnasx
15 lucky9876coins
14 Spiff
9 skywalkerLAX
9 B747-437B
8 gleff
7 nsx
2 Markie
1 Radioman

I'd like to see a highlights thread, either monthly or quarterly, with Talk Board accompishments. Maybe a different member could post that each time to get everyone involved?

There are clearly different levels of participation on the public side of the Talk Board forum. I checked how many threads each Talk Board member has posted in since January 1 (not total posts, but just number of TalkBoard Forum threads they have participated in, including this thread):

21 bhatnasx
15 lucky9876coins
14 Spiff
9 skywalkerLAX
9 B747-437B
8 gleff
7 nsx
2 Markie
1 Radioman

I'd like to see a highlights thread, either monthly or quarterly, with Talk Board accompishments. Maybe a different member could post that each time to get everyone involved?

Any suggestions on what you want TalkBoard to fix that you think it can fix?

I'm more of the school of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it", and a "status quo" monthly or quarterly report doesn't sound that interesting to even this member of the minority of FTers who care to read this section of FT.

Any suggestions on what you want TalkBoard to fix that you think it can fix?

No, I don't have any suggestions. If they asked for input on the public forum, though, and I had an opinion on the topic, I'd be glad to offer mine, as I hope you would be, too. Right now those topics seem to be limited to forum creation.

I just want to know what they're doing besides the public discussion on forum creation. It seems like a simple question, but maybe it's more complex than I anticipated.

I just want to know what they're doing besides the public discussion on forum creation. It seems like a simple question, but maybe it's more complex than I anticipated.

Not at all. The answer is simple. Nothing's broken so we aren't busy fixing.

If someone comes up with a great idea, of course we will do our best to study it and recommend action. We haven't come up with any grandiose ideas or anything major at all, but I'm happy with that given that nothing's broken.

Real politicians have a "publish or perish" mentality, whereby they feel they must do SOMETHING just for appearances. Fortunately we are not real politicians!

Ok, will try this again since I hit the wrong button & lost everything I wrote. Grrr.

First, not in any particular order & my opinion only:

* 99% of FT is not aware there is a TB. Always been that way; probably always will be. Crikey, until FT/IB posts there's an election, even then most folk don't know about it. But because people don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose!

* I don't need a monthly (way, way overkill) or even a quarterly report to 'prove' TB is doing their job. But I have no problem w/ them doing a 2x/year report of what's cropped up & here's what we decided. While on the one hand one could just check TB forum, given how many don't know there is one, maybe there could be a btw - here's the 2x/year report & it gets that announcement thing at the top of the forums, or worst case 1x/ year long before the new TB election opens.

* I really do want MORE clarification on what constitutes creating a forum - something CONCRETE - not just the 'we'll know it when we see it' stuff. I'd like to see what a new forum actually needs to create one so that those who want to start one know some of the criteria they'll be held to. That would help immensely!!! Granted, it won't be all details - but I'm sorry gang (ie, TB) - 'we'll know it when we see it w/o much criteria other than we don't think there are many posts' is just not good enough. Enough already w/ that line. * THIS IS MY # ONE TOPIC & I HOPE YOU'LL ADD IT TO YOUR AGENDA

* Same w/ closing down a forum. Similar to the above (other than not # 1).

* I have NO problem w/ a TB member being a Mod. Truthfully just as a FT member I'm a bit surprised others do, and from reading some posts it seems (not just in this forum) they have their own agenda. But that aside, whether TB or Mod, I give anyone credit who applies, gets interviewed, meets the criteria or gets voted on. I'm willing to give all of them - Mod or TB - the benefit of the doubt that they'll try to serve FT and its members. And I respect them all & appreciate them all for that.

Cheers.

I believe their should be a subject brought up about adding a forum about pancakes.

I believe their should be a subject brought up about adding a forum about pancakes.

Duly noted. ;)

* I really do want MORE clarification on what constitutes creating a forum - something CONCRETE - not just the 'we'll know it when we see it' stuff. I'd like to see what a new forum actually needs to create one so that those who want to start one know some of the criteria they'll be held to. That would help immensely!!! Granted, it won't be all details - but I'm sorry gang (ie, TB) - 'we'll know it when we see it w/o much criteria other than we don't think there are many posts' is just not good enough. Enough already w/ that line. * THIS IS MY # ONE TOPIC & I HOPE YOU'LL ADD IT TO YOUR AGENDA

* Same w/ closing down a forum. Similar to the above (other than not # 1).

The diversity of the TB including different opinions and beliefs leads to the fact that there is no line to follow of what makes a new forum eligible or not. It is a personal evaluation that each TB member is doing when it comes to that. If I believe that a particular topic has a future with a high frequency of contribution by the community I would vote in favor of it. Otherwise I pass. Same as closing down a forum.

This is my personal point of view and does certainly not stand for my fellow friends I serve with on TB.

I hope it helps a little for everyone to understand that there is no general policy except for the voting process itself.

Cheers,
S.

I believe their should be a subject brought up about adding a forum about pancakes.

... and please, no waffling on this one! :D

The diversity of the TB including different opinions and beliefs leads to the fact that there is no line to follow of what makes a new forum eligible or not. It is a personal evaluation that each TB member is doing when it comes to that. If I believe that a particular topic has a future with a high frequency of contribution by the community I would vote in favor of it. Otherwise I pass. Same as closing down a forum.

This is my personal point of view and does certainly not stand for my fellow friends I serve with on TB.

I hope it helps a little for everyone to understand that there is no general policy except for the voting process itself.

Cheers,
S.

I share this viewpoint and, as I have stated several times, I am against specific metrics for opening/closing forums as that just encourages junk posting.

And yet - I always hear about the 'junk posting' without any proof of that in terms of starting a forum. Could the TB folk who keep saying they're worried about junk posting please provide concrete, specific posts about 'junk posting' in mulitple forum creation threads that led them to conclude certain forums shouldn't be created. I'm serious. Give the rest of us examples; otherwise, your 'we're worried about junk posting' is - quite frankly - anticipating a problem that might not exist.

But - again - my main point - unless someone knows there's at least SOME criteria other than 'we'll know it when we see it', people who would like to have a forum created don't know a criteria they'll be held to, other than 'I don't think you hit it' - without 'it' being defined.!! And I'm sorry - 'worried' about junk posting isn't a criteria.

I'm supportive of TB & haven't dissed you all like others, but you (or least lucky) did ask what we would like to see on the agenda & I'm point blank saying this is one of the things on the agenda I'd like to see.

If you've got other things already on the agenda, then please post them in this thread so as not to waste our time asking for things to be put on the agenda that already are. If not, then at least consider what folks are posting if you're actually going to ask for their input. I know - novel thought.

Cheers.

* I really do want MORE clarification on what constitutes creating a forum - something CONCRETE

* Same w/ closing down a forum.

Here's a summary of what I have written on this subject:

With forum creation or removal, as with practically everything else on FT, I ask myself: Does it add value to FT on balance, or does it subtract value? Adding value means providing information and entertainment to FT members. Subtracting value means wasting their time or annoying them.

Writing guidelines to mechanize this evaluation would be a huge challenge, and the forum opening and closing decisions might get worse rather than better. There is so much guesswork involved.

Numerical criteria for forums are too rigid. Some forums are useful even at a low post count because the focus of the forum is so tight and because there is no other good home for the information. If it were easy to come up with numerical criteria, someone would have already done so.

There are several factors that I would consider when deciding whether to recommend creation of a new forum or removal of an existing forum:

1. Post count. How many posts have there been that fit into the forum?

2. Passion. Are there enough passionate advocates who would use the forum? Passionate users are the life of any forum, and you need perhaps a dozen highly active contributors to really keep the ball rolling. Otherwise interest tails off and the forum essentially dies.

3. Alternative. Do the posts in question have a reasonably good home in the absence of a forum?

4. Fragmentation. Would creating this forum drop any of the alternative forums below critical pass, potentially leading to two dead forums rather than one live forum?

What about creating forums on a trial basis? IMHO, having a proliferation of temporary forums that fail to make the grade will confuse FT newbies. People will find a forum through web search, and a week or a month later it's gone. If the forum doesn't have a really good chance of continuing, creating it and then removing it only served to confuse some members and annoy others. That's why I don't think that the TalkBoard should promiscuously create new forums, even if they were easily closed.

I think it is not too hard to spend a few minutes thinking about a proposal in terms of "Are there enough folks who would contribute" and "Is there a general interest" (and NO 10 is NOT enough of a number) vs "Do I just make this proposal because I have nothing else to do" or "would I just like to have it".

I find it interesting that proposals are permanently being made by the same members, you could nearly think there is a commission for every proposal. :rolleyes: Read through here and you all get the picture.

So instead of stating the TBs policy is unclear in how to admit a new forum it would be rather recommended (again, from MY side) to think twice about posts and proposals.

This might not be the answer many like to hear... but then again I'm not a shrink but just a FTer. ;)

No, I don't have any suggestions.

Ok, then what is the point of TB repeatedly highlighting that things are well enough and/or well enough left alone?

If I thought there is something TB can fix that TB should fix and enough of TB decided to take issue with it so as to have a vote on the matter, then I'd expect TB would have something to highlight: the outcome of the vote. Otherwise, I don't see the point of forcing TB to put out reports that would be much ado about nothing except petty politicking.

Is there something specific you want TB to vote upon?

Is there something specific you want TB to vote upon?

No. I listed my question for Talk Board, as requested by lucky9876coins, in post #2. I looked at that and my other posts and don't see that I've asked Talk Board to vote on anything nor fix anything. Those seem to be topics of interest to you as you have raised them both. I just want to see more information about their doings in the public forum.

Do you have a question you want raised at the Talk Board meeting? Is there something you want fixed or them to vote on? Are you just here to critique questions asked by other members?

All opinions posted below are purely mine, and not those of the TalkBoard or me in my role as a Moderator

In terms of New Fora:
Personally, I am in favour of some sort of minimum criteria rather than the absolute criteria - for example 200 posts in a 12 month period.

In terms of closing Fora:
Again a criteria which reflects little or no use, or failing to fill a niche market.

TalkBoard Updates
My views, and suggestions for engagement are quite well known. I hope to encourage the TB to give some of these ideas a go. Otherwise, perhaps a 'Chat with a member of TB' could be arranged more easily.

I'd like to see you publicize, in the public forum, exactly what else you are doing, as it's not clear to the general membership what your function is, so members may not know what to ask.


I'd like to see a highlights thread, either monthly or quarterly, with Talk Board accompishments.

Any suggestions on what you want TalkBoard to fix that you think it can fix?

I'm more of the school of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it", and a "status quo" monthly or quarterly report doesn't sound that interesting to even this member of the minority of FTers who care to read this section of FT.

Ok, then what is the point of TB repeatedly highlighting that things are well enough and/or well enough left alone?

If I thought there is something TB can fix that TB should fix and enough of TB decided to take issue with it so as to have a vote on the matter, then I'd expect TB would have something to highlight: the outcome of the vote. Otherwise, I don't see the point of forcing TB to put out reports that would be much ado about nothing except petty politicking.

Is there something specific you want TB to vote upon?

No.

Do you have a question you want raised at the Talk Board meeting?

Not now.

Is there something you want fixed or them to vote on? Obviously not now, but who knows about you. I wouldn't segregate the "fix" from the "vote" either. Voting for the sake of posturing doesn't fix anything; and TB fixing things that impact the general membership base without a TB vote sort of defeats the purpose of TB voting.

Are you just here to critique questions asked by other members?Obviously not -- and it's not about critiquing questions but about your idea of monthly or quarterly highlights thread showing "accomplishments". What do you want TB as a group to accomplish by voting that it can accomplish that you don't see TB accomplishing?

Monthly or quarterly reports highlighting "accomplishments" just engenders the process of creating "accomplishments" -- which brings us back to the question: "What do you want TB as a group to accomplish by voting that it can accomplish that you don't see TB accomplishing?"

And yet - I always hear about the 'junk posting' without any proof of that in terms of starting a forum. Could the TB folk who keep saying they're worried about junk posting please provide concrete, specific posts about 'junk posting' in mulitple forum creation threads that led them to conclude certain forums shouldn't be created. I'm serious. Give the rest of us examples; otherwise, your 'we're worried about junk posting' is - quite frankly - anticipating a problem that might not exist. Actually, while not TB, I can provide an example of when this has happened.

Cast your mind back to when we had the oldies' travel forum. As a forum, it didn't really work - there were only a couple of frequent participants. But whenever the subject of 'should we close this forum' was raised on TB, there would be a sudden spike of posts/threads within this forum. Now, a small amount of that was because people were reminded that the forum existed - but a larger amount was because at least one of those frequent participants would suddenly start posting all kinds of stuff in there to make it look like the forum was more active than it actually was. When doing any analysis of stats on this forum, we had to break activity down by member as well, to try and remove the effects that this person was having by trying to either drum up participation or manipulate how busy the forum was (your view of their acts might be determined by how charitable versus cynical you are ;)). Ultimately, it was determined that the forum was not really viable, but it took extra time and effort to determine that because of the actions of this member.

Some of the analyses I carried out to determine this are posted on the discussion thread around this forum if you want to see some of the effects for yourself.

Sharon, I believe that my post number 34 answers your question. I believe that any objective member could apply those criteria to any forum proposal and predict with >90% accuracy what the TalkBoard will do.

We have some borderline cases in which forums were not recommended at first but fast-changing conditions quickly led to a TB recommendation to create a forum. These cases point out the trickiest part of forum recommendations: timing. You want to wait until the case is clear, so that the proposal does not need to be acted on more than once. Differences in opinion as to when the time is right are the most common disagreements among general members, and on the TalkBoard, but all's well that ends well.

We need an Only Internet Brands forum. Membership needs a direct line of communication with IB. Too many things are out of Randy's control; ORP has become irrelevant for many issues. TB should push for open communication lines with IB.

lucky asked for feedback re: upcoming TB mtg. Opening & closing forums was my feedback & something I'd like to see on the agenda, as I think there still needs to more of a clear concise way of communicating to those who are interested in a new forum or think one should be closed what they'll be held to/should consider before proposing one.

Some have posted some details that make sense; some of it is still too much 'we'll know it when we see it', which doesn't really help folk who do think a new forum should be created. The majority of forum proposals from what I can tell get shot down. I don't have the time today to go back & do a calculation of % of forums that got approved from # of proposals, but perhaps someone else does.

And - I wasn't expecting the topic to actually get debated by the TB in the soliciting feedback thread. If that's the case, perhaps all TBs should chime in & perhaps create a proposal & vote ;). But I'd also suggest that perhaps this is an area that should be put on the agenda & re-discussed. Things & input changes.

I'm going from memory here, but IIRC TB is basically an overview/approval of forums (w/ a sub-category of whether certain forums should be restricted), now that the bylaws have been sorted thanks to koko's & other's work, what else does TB have going or should be reviewing in its mtg since the core is approval/disapproval? Thus I'd say periodic reviews of how the approval process for open/closure of forums is actually something that should be on the agenda each time TB meets.

Anyway, you asked for feedback. That's mine.

And I can't remember - does TB provide meeting minutes after its meetings or let us know what was discussed/how things were decided?

Cheers.

We need an Only Internet Brands forum. Membership needs a direct line of communication with IB. Too many things are out of Randy's control; ORP has become irrelevant for many issues. TB should push for open communication lines with IB.

Another vote for this.

But - again - my main point - unless someone knows there's at least SOME criteria other than 'we'll know it when we see it', people who would like to have a forum created don't know a criteria they'll be held to, other than 'I don't think you hit it' - without 'it' being defined.!! And I'm sorry - 'worried' about junk posting isn't a criteria.

I'm not worried; I'm fairly confident that junk posting will occur in an effort to open or "save" a forum. And I'm still not going to offer a numeric metric - FlyerTalkers already know how to game systems quite well. For me, it will remain "I'll know it when I see it."

lucky asked for feedback re: upcoming TB mtg. Opening & closing forums was my feedback & something I'd like to see on the agenda, as I think there still needs to more of a clear concise way of communicating to those who are interested in a new forum or think one should be closed what they'll be held to/should consider before proposing one.

To me, it's this: Contribute where it's most appropriate, whether your topic is in a forum created for that topic or in a forum that encompasses your topic and possibly others. Should a forum specifically for your topic not already exist and if there's a sufficient (nope, not going to quantify, sorry) volume of posts/threads/interest, then I'd be supportive of a topic-specific forum.

That's about it from me on the opening or closing of forums.

Some have posted some details that make sense; some of it is still too much 'we'll know it when we see it', which doesn't really help folk who do think a new forum should be created. The majority of forum proposals from what I can tell get shot down. I don't have the time today to go back & do a calculation of % of forums that got approved from # of proposals, but perhaps someone else does.

And that's usually because new forum requests are often made by the "I want" or "Wouldn't it be nice if" or "I don't fly airline X but why not give them a forum" individuals who do not demonstrate an unmet need for the creation of a new forum. I invite folks to make a case and continue to post in the forum that most nearly encompasses the topic in question. If they refuse to do that because the title of the forum isn't a copy of the airline/hotel/car program they want to discuss, then it becomes a 'teddy out of the 'pram' (thank you, Jenbel! :) ) moment.

So, for me, there's not much more to discuss at this time as I've not been shy about sharing my feelings on this matter. Other TalkBoard members may feel differently.

"What do you want TB as a group to accomplish by voting that it can accomplish that you don't see TB accomplishing?"

I'm not going to play games with you on this forum.

I'm not going to play games with you on this forum.

It's not a game -- it remains a serious question, given what you said you want TB to do.

We need an Only Internet Brands forum.

That's something TB could vote on and accomplish.

does TB provide meeting minutes after its meetings or let us know what was discussed/how things were decided?

That's an EXCELLENT question. Since this is the first TB meeting, this ought to be on the top of the agenda.

Online TB discussions are private, so the default would be either no minutes or private minutes. However we might decide to release something in the form of a formal resolution later. That would be after giving non-attending TB members a chance to contribute, then making a formal proposal and voting on it.

That's something TB could vote on and accomplish.

Agreed, something they have been unwilling to do so far (presumably because they haven't talked to IB about it first).

And I can't remember - does TB provide meeting minutes after its meetings or let us know what was discussed/how things were decided?
Last time we had a meeting the minutes were recorded and eventually published. I'll be recording the minutes this time around, so hopefully we can share them with the public after all the TalkBoard members have a chance to look them over for accuracy.

Last time we had a meeting the minutes were recorded and eventually published. I'll be recording the minutes this time around, so hopefully we can share them with the public after all the TalkBoard members have a chance to look them over for accuracy.

Indeed they were:

TalkBoard Meeting Summary 25 April 2008 (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/820987-talkboard-meeting-summary-25-april-2008-a.html?highlight=minutes)

I don't know whether this is something that Talkboard can address or not. Lately, I have noticed moderators (some, not all), becoming personally aggressive and committing blatant TOS violations. Two of them recently got a thread closed down, and a couple have wound up on my ignore list.

There needs to be a formal procedure of addressing concerns about mods. Right now, the only option is to PM Randy who, I am sure, is very busy and doesn't want to be bothered each time a mod crosses the line that is forbidden to other FTers. There also needs to be some input on these issues from the representatives of the non-mod, FT user community, i.e. Talkboard.

Note: this is posted in the Talkboard forum in direct response to a request for topics for Talkboard discussion. I am not interested in debating this question with any moderators.

That's an EXCELLENT question. Since this is the first TB meeting, this ought to be on the top of the agenda.

Online TB discussions are private, so the default would be either no minutes or private minutes. However we might decide to release something in the form of a formal resolution later. That would be after giving non-attending TB members a chance to contribute, then making a formal proposal and voting on it.
Is it really? How odd.

Is it really?

My TB noobness is showing. :o

I don't know whether this is something that Talkboard can address or not. Lately, I have noticed moderators (some, not all), becoming personally aggressive and committing blatant TOS violations. Two of them recently got a thread closed down, and a couple have wound up on my ignore list.

The TalkBoard does not make policy for moderators or moderation. If you see a perceived TOS violation by any FlyerTalker, use the RBP button in the lower left-hand corner of the post in question.

There needs to be a formal procedure of addressing concerns about mods.

There is and you seem to know it:

Right now, the only option is to PM Randy who, I am sure, is very busy and doesn't want to be bothered each time a mod crosses the line that is forbidden to other FTers.

Where did Randy ever say he was very busy and doesn't want to be bothered with such concerns? :confused:

There also needs to be some input on these issues from the representatives of the non-mod, FT user community, i.e. Talkboard.

The TalkBoard does not make policy for moderators or moderation.

Note: this is posted in the Talkboard forum in direct response to a request for topics for Talkboard discussion. I am not interested in debating this question with any moderators.

There's nothing to debate. The Talkboard does not make policy for moderators or moderation, regardless of what other volunteer positions TalkBoard members may hold. This is a directive from Randy. You might as well ask TalkBoard to discuss Russian foreign policy.

My understanding is that TB is also meeting with a representative from IB. Is that correct?

The TalkBoard does not make policy for moderators or moderation. If you see a perceived TOS violation by any FlyerTalker, use the RBP button in the lower left-hand corner of the post in question.Talkboard makes recommendations to Randy and, if it feels it's appropriate, can recommend a review procedure. When it's a mod who commits the TOS violation, reporting the post to another mod is less than effective. Some mods (not you -- I've no complaint with you at all) stick together -- it's the same reason why there are civilian police review boards.


There is and you seem to know it:



Where did Randy ever say he was very busy and doesn't want to be bothered with such concerns? :confused:I've tried this procedure. I've found it ineffective.

The TalkBoard does not make policy for moderators or moderation.Understood. I'm not asking for TB to make policy for moderators or moderation. I'm ask that they recommend to Randy a formal review process when a member has a complaint about a mod.

There's nothing to debate. The Talkboard does not make policy for moderators or moderation, regardless of what other volunteer positions TalkBoard members may hold. This is a directive from Randy. You might as well ask TalkBoard to discuss Russian foreign policy.Please see my clarification. Again: I'm not asking for TB to set policy for mods. I'm asking TB to consider recommending a formal review procedure when a member has a complaint against a mod.

Talkboard makes recommendations to Randy and, if it feels it's appropriate, can recommend a review procedure. When it's a mod who commits the TOS violation, reporting the post to another mod is less than effective. Some mods (not you -- I've no complaint with you at all) stick together -- it's the same reason why there are civilian police review boards.

I didn't perceive it to be personal. :)

I've tried this procedure. I've found it ineffective.

That matter is between you and Randy. I'll not presume to speak for him.

That matter is between you and Randy.

No, it's not. If something on this website is broken, then TB should make recommendations on how to fix it. I agree with PTravel.

No, it's not. If something on this website is broken, then TB should make recommendations on how to fix it. I agree with PTravel.

And I don't agree that there's anything "broken".

And I don't agree that there's anything "broken".

And you're a moderator, precisely the type of user PTravel said he wasn't interested in hearing from.

And you're a moderator, precisely the type of user PTravel said he wasn't interested in hearing from.

This is a thread for soliciting feedback for the upcoming TalkBoard meeting.

Too bad. This is a thread for soliciting feedback for the upcoming TalkBoard meeting. As one of the nine TalkBoard members, I'll address such questions if I choose to.

I have a question for ya. Have you ever disagreed with Randy on anything? Ever?

I have a question for ya. Have you ever disagreed with Randy on anything? Ever?

Yes. However, that's not the focus of this thread. :)

Yes. However, that's not the focus of this thread. :)

OK, so on topic, is it true there will be an IB rep at this meeting? Will Randy be there?

OK, so on topic, is it true there will be an IB rep at this meeting? Will Randy be there?

I can only speak for myself. It is the TalkBoard liaison's job to announce the list of attendees or the other participants to answer for themselves.

I will be there. :)

When are the next talkboard elections so I can run on my pancake platform?

When are the next talkboard elections so I can run on my pancake platform?

Should be around Oct/Nov.

Please don't antagonize our volunteers with such questions. Not sure what your point is but if you are truly interested if this particular volunteer has ever disagreed with me, why not contact the member by PM -- which is the purpose of that form of communication tool on FlyerTalk.
I have a question for ya. Have you ever disagreed with Randy on anything? Ever?

For the record, I will be there. For the record, I am the one that suggested and arranged for an IB rep to be there. For the record, I've asked the IB rep to address the topic: The future of FlyerTalk. For the record, this topic has never even been presented by anyone from IB at any volunteer Moderator meeting or in any private forum. For the record, this means that the member-elected TalkBoard will hear whatever is said first.
OK, so on topic, is it true there will be an IB rep at this meeting? Will Randy be there?

I've asked that this thread be reopened because the value of the member input is regarded as greater than some of the occasional sidetrack. We'll address those that sidetrack the topic and welcome those that have topics for the TalkBoard. Thank you.

So, for me, there's not much more to discuss at this time as I've not been shy about sharing my feelings on this matter. Other TalkBoard members may feel differently.

Which is a reason I asked that it be put on the agenda & discussed when lucky asked for input. What is true for one TB member might not be true for another TB member.

If ALL 9 TB members would like to post publicly on this soliciting feedback for upcoming TB meeting thread that they're against putting the opening/closing of forums on the agenda because they don't think it's a topic that needs to be addressed at all, then I would be in agreement that it shouldn't be added.

However, things change, TB members change, criteria - or even I know it when I see it :rolleyes: - changes, so I don't see why it wouldn't be on a TB agenda at some point or w/ each new TB group rather than just stay static year-in/year-out :confused:

Of course, that also raises the question of is there a point in asking for input re: upcoming TB mtgs? From what I can tell, each FT member that has mentioned something they'd like to see considered (I'm not including the mod sidetrack because that's beyond the purview of TB) has basically been debated on this thread & told basically don't think it's worthwhile, when the topic of the thread was not debate the FTer but simply solicit their input. That, to me, is disappointing.

And perhaps more input re: the thread's topic would be forthcoming if more FTers were made aware of the thread itself, such as the sticky announcements at the top of FT. It's done for TB elections. Why not for soliciting input for TB meetings? In addition to perhaps getting valued input on how to better serve TB itself & FT members, you might highlight to FTers the fact that there actually IS a TB, something the majority of FT is not aware exists.

Cheers.

I agree with SkiAdcock that TalkBoard does have a challenge to get the message out that they exist, let alone what they are doing. We have 5 members that have taken the time, in the last 10 days now, to post serious suggestions or feedback here for the upcoming Talk Board meeting. Where is everyone else? Is TalkBoard getting the message out to them? Do those members know what you do?

Better communication with the general membership should be the first item on your agenda. I did look at the 2008 minutes which Spiff posted and that seemed to be a goal back then, too.

Obtaining better information and feedback from the members was discussed. Could TalkMail be used to better communicate what the TalkBoard is doing?

What percentage of FTers even click on the announcements about TB elections that are plastered across all of the FT forums? What percentage of FTers even vote when TB has elections?

TB members seem very receptive to obtaining information and feedback from the general FT members -- at least those general members who take the initiative of doing so. The rest of the FTers aren't part of a very small hardcore minority and probably either don't find FT materially "broken" or just consider FT another internet bulletin board not worth worrying about as much as the very small hardcore minority. This thread exemplifies all of the above.

If ALL 9 TB members would like to post publicly on this soliciting feedback for upcoming TB meeting thread that they're against putting the opening/closing of forums on the agenda because they don't think it's a topic that needs to be addressed at all, then I would be in agreement that it shouldn't be added.

For what it's worth, I don't think there's a true qualitative measurement that can be used to define criteria to open/close a forum. It's a judgement call. We've been elected by the members to use our judgement to best represent their needs and desires.

For what it's worth, I don't think there's a true qualitative measurement that can definied criteria to open/close a forum. It's a judgement call. We've been elected by the members to use our judgement to best represent their needs and desires.

Exactly. Nobody ever said that it is about a straightlined procedure. If you vote for / elect someone for specific position then you do it with the belief that s/he will act in your best interest, isnt it like this !? Should over the time (and 2 years is a long time) change then everyone has the option of voting for someone else the next time (even IF the candidate still wants to be re-elected).

What do you folks want to hear ? Details what is being discussed behind the curtain ? Or that we dont do anything else but voting for or against fora ? Not likely to happen...

Whatever result it may bring, I find the proposal of talking about an IB Forum not bad. I support it iit being discussed, however I wont be in LAX in 3 days but I count on 8 other competent members of this community to do whats in the memberships best interest.

Question: Will the agenda for this meeting be posted prior to the meeting? Members might have some input for TB based on the agreed upon agenda.

Question: Will the agenda for this meeting be posted prior to the meeting? Members might have some input for TB based on the agreed upon agenda.
I don't believe so. At this point there's not a whole lot of time for feedback on the published agenda. Most of us are flying out to Los Angeles tomorrow and the meeting is on Friday. Like I said earlier, we'll hopefully publish a summary of the meeting, though.

What do you folks want to hear ? Details what is being discussed behind the curtain ? Or that we dont do anything else but voting for or against fora ? Not likely to happen...

My request, which is back in post #2, is pretty simple. What else are you doing besides forum creation, and can that be communicated to the members? Surely there's some topics you're involved with, besides forum creation, that can be shared in the public forum?

I don't think the general membership has much information on what the Talk Board does. Are we only going to hear every two years when minutes are posted or when you discuss creating new forums, which seems to be the only thing being discussed in the public forum this year?

In your particular case it's hard to tell what your views are because you did not participate in the Question and Answer thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-elections-09/1013528-question-6-change-no-change.html) in the election campaign. I made my decision to vote based on answers and ideas in that thread. Some current Talk Board members did spell out specific topics they'd like addressed, such as better communication or future qualifications for the Talk Board. One Talk Board member even supported an Internet Brands forum in that section, a topic that another member has suggested on this forum. There were a lot of good ideas from both winners and losers in that thread. You did not participate, so I can't go back and ask what has happened to any ideas that you put forth in that thread.

I'd like to see those Talk Board members that spelled out specific goals report on how they're doing. B747-437B did report back, in this thread, that there wasn't adequate support for one of his goals and he could not go forward with it. He's not the only one that listed things he's like to see accomplished by the Talk Board.

Tom between flights at ORD

In your particular case it's hard to tell what your views are because you did not participate in the Question and Answer thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-elections-09/1013528-question-6-change-no-change.html) in the election campaign.

This was the Q&A from past year that has not been my campaign term, hence no reason for me to participate. IIRC there is a similar thread from 2008 where you can find my answers as well.

Let's see where it goes after the "issue" has been discussed.

Cheers from YVR,
S.

This thread was posted so that folks had an opportunity to share concerns and ideas that folks wanted in front of us in advance of meeting in person, and it's my expectation that we'll have an extensive recap as a followup to the meeting.

This was the Q&A from past year that has not been my campaign term, hence no reason for me to participate.

I was wondering if I had the term wrong after I left the AC (no wifi on board UA to see if I was wrong--clearly I was). Please accept my apology for misidentifying you as a candidate in the last election.

Where does a member go, though, to see the vision for Talk Board for those that weren't up for election this last November? I imagine a lot has changed since 2008 elections. Maybe one idea you can discuss, besides others mentioned in this forum, is a short bio of each member and a few lines discussing their vision of how Talk Board can provide value to members. Might even include a photo at the member's option (I know one board member that I've met that may not want that) and a link to their blog. Place it right on the top of the Talk Board forum, or some other appropriate place (Community, maybe).

Right now I can look in the election thread from 6 months ago and see the views of elected members there, but for the Talk Board members that did not participate there the only thing out in public this year is forum creation threads and not much else.

Separately, I noticed that Randy posted a representative of Internet Brands will be at the meeting. There has been a lot of discussion on line about Internet Brands, including travel articles that they have published that are completely wrong (I cited an AA article (http://www.flyertalk.com/articles/airlines/american-airlines-in-flight-features-and-amenities.html) on a prior thread that talked about their luxurious first class that was full of errors, including swivel seats and duvets on all first class flights). If AA had all these features, every one of you would abandon your current carrier and come over to experience luxurious MD80s in first class. There have also been recent threads about FT system reliability and software changes.

If Talk Board has known this for a few weeks, it would have been a great topic to solicit member input on and narrow it down to a few hot topics. I think you missed an opportunity here to get member input and now it's down to the wire.

If you are still taking suggestions, can you ask them about inaccuracies on this article database they maintain and what they intend to do to correct them? I suspect this is a topic that some Talk Board members may not even be aware of.

If you are still taking suggestions, can you ask them about inaccuracies on this article database they maintain and what they intend to do to correct them? I suspect this is a topic that some Talk Board members may not even be aware of.

I'm quote confident that IB has felt the heat on those embarrassingly amateurish articles. If I were Randy I wouldn't want even a tangential association with that project. In the unlikely event that Randy has not already given IB an earful, the TalkBoard could weigh in. I doubt there is any need to do so at this late date.

One might also conjecture that in fact IB perhaps benefit from more page views/clicks when folks find and share such over-the-top descriptions of in-flight nirvana, and therefore such articles might be more in IB's financial interest than ones that are actually accurate.

Where does a member go, though, to see the vision for Talk Board for those that weren't up for election this last November?

Here's the TalkBoard Elections 2008 Q&A (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-elections-08-653). You'll probably find most of the answers you seek there.

If you've got any specific questions that aren't covered there, please ask. :)

I'm not going to go through the 2008 campaign material and raise questions from statements made there. From looking at this thread as it's ran over 10 days now, most of the membership just doesn't have any feedback, and we could go round and round as to why that is. I'm sure you're all tired of me asking what you're doing besides creating forums, but I've taken too much of your time already and I'm just going to stop here. I don't think I've posted as much in a single thread since we discussed OMNI post count a year or two back.

I don't think the solicitation here was about whether individual members have changed their views since 2008, or even what their particular views are. Though such questions are always welcome.

The solicitation was for issues of concern to Flyertalk members that they'd like us to be talking about when we get together.

And I do appreciate the feedback that you'd like us to discuss the 'travel tips' articles :mad: that are really quite :o :o :o

Well here's one. Tension between newbies and established members. It can be cyclical, and on some of the boards I participate on, we're getting back into a newbies aren't worthy mode.

Is there anything that can be done at a structural level (not at a management level, the level the mods work at) to manage this tension between new members and existing members?

Is there anything that can be done at a structural level (not at a management level, the level the mods work at) to manage this tension between new members and existing members?

Wasn't there a proposal to recommend a flame-free noob thread in forums where this is a problem? IMHO, creation of such a thread would be the moderators' call. I haven't seen any other solutions to this problem on any other internet forums. (Very few members will read posting guidelines no matter how they are presented.)

On Sharon's point re criteria for the creation (or closure) or fora, this is something that keeps coming back every now and then. Some FTers argue that the criteria for the creation of fora are opaque, that it is a black art for TB initiates, to which many TB members reply that it is a matter of judgment that cannot be reduced to metrics.

Now, while I would tend to agree with the latter, nonetheless every discussion on the creation (or closure) of a forum tends to revolve around the same kind of issues. Not every TBer necessarily has the same approach, has the same factor-mix nor weighs things in the same way. However, there is nonetheless a series of common themes and arguments that re-appear all the time. Anybody who has spent some time reading TB topics will be familiar with those themes. However, not everybody who makes a suggestion on TB is necessarily familiar with these. What will typically happen every now and then is that an FTer who is not familiar with TB has an idea for a new forum, posts that idea in another forum with which (s)he is familiar forum and is being told that the proper forum for discussion of this is TB topics. So the FTer pops along here with the proposal with little idea of how TB typically approaches the issue.

Given that a substantial part of TB topics discussion are on the creation or closure of fora, it seems to me that it would be helpful to have a sticky that provides some guidance as to the kind of considerations that TB is likely to take into account when deciding whether or not to create or close a forum, a kind of 10 or 15 things to think about when suggesting the creation of a new forum (or closure of a forum).

This would be guidance which would indicate the kind of things that members of TB generally tend to take into consideration although it would be made clear that this is an indicative, non-exhaustive list, that is not binding on TB members and that individual TB members may weigh different factors differently. This would have the advantage of making the person putting forward the proposal think about the kind of arguments and objections that are likely to be raised and formulate more solid proposals that take into account issues that they might not have thought of in the first place. Not sure whether this would be suitable for discussion at a meeting. It seems to me that this is something which is a longer term project, requiring drafting and refining but perhaps a meeting could at least consider whether it is a worthwhile project to engage into.

On Tom911's point re individual TB members giving feedback on their performance vis-a-vis their electoral platform in post #78, surely this is a campaign issue for individual TB members who present themselves for re-election rather than one for discussion by TB as a whole. Some candidates will want to refer to their achievements in their campaign statement and some electors may want to ask some feedback on past performance as part of the questions asked of candidates during the campaign. It does not seem to me that this is an issue for a TB meeting as such.

Given that a substantial part of TB topics discussion are on the creation or closure of fora, it seems to me that it would be helpful to have a sticky that provides some guidance as to the kind of considerations that TB is likely to take into account when deciding whether or not to create or close a forum, a kind of 10 or 15 things to think about when suggesting the creation of a new forum (or closure of a forum).

This would be guidance which would indicate the kind of things that members of TB generally tend to take into consideration although it would be made clear that this is an indicative, non-exhaustive list, that is not binding on TB members and that individual TB members may weigh different factors differently. This would have the advantage of making the person putting forward the proposal think about the kind of arguments and objections that are likely to be raised and formulate more solid proposals that take into account issues that they might not have thought of in the first place.

This is exactly what I tried to do with post 34 above (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13797561-post34.html). However perhaps the TB can come up with a formal version that we are all willing to sign on to. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than unanimous agreement for such a document. And I do believe that we all agree on what the important factors are.

This shouldn't be too hard to assemble, and hey, it will keep us off the streets and out of trouble. ;)

This is exactly what I tried to do with post 34 above (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13797561-post34.html). However perhaps the TB can come up with a formal version that we are all willing to sign on to. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than unanimous agreement for such a document. And I do believe that we all agree on what the important factors are.

This shouldn't be too hard to assemble, and hey, it will keep us off the streets and out of trouble. ;)I agree that it would have to be a consensus document to be worthwhile, imo.

Well here's one. Tension between newbies and established members. It can be cyclical, and on some of the boards I participate on, we're getting back into a newbies aren't worthy mode.

Is there anything that can be done at a structural level (not at a management level, the level the mods work at) to manage this tension between new members and existing members?

Such as? Doing away with join date and post count altogether so as not to distinuish between veterans and newcomers?

Such as? Doing away with join date and post count altogether so as not to distinuish between veterans and newcomers?
I put it out there for TB to decide if it's an issue worth discussing at their meeting later this week. I believed that's what this thread was about - kind of a brainstorming approach to things which TB might want to take on and look at and think about, and possibly seek ideas from us on at a later date.

So on that basis, I think my suggestion is that this is an area which might require a bit more thought, and if TB agree, then they need to do some discussion of it and possibly seek ideas from us as to what we might think could improve the situation - and not necessarily one which I have any solutions to, although others on FT might have their own ideas. But it would be nice to see TB showing some initiative, and trying to develop their own solutions as well. This isn't the first time it's been raised, there are quite a few previous discussion threads on it, and if some members of TB who are unaware of what TB has done previously are encouraged to go through the archives and see what went before, that's not necessarily a bad thing either!

On Sharon's point re criteria for the creation (or closure) or fora, this is something that keeps coming back every now and then. Some FTers argue that the criteria for the creation of fora are opaque, that it is a black art for TB initiates, to which many TB members reply that it is a matter of judgment that cannot be reduced to metrics.

Now, while I would tend to agree with the latter, nonetheless every discussion on the creation (or closure) of a forum tends to revolve around the same kind of issues. Not every TBer necessarily has the same approach, has the same factor-mix nor weighs things in the same way. However, there is nonetheless a series of common themes and arguments that re-appear all the time. Anybody who has spent some time reading TB topics will be familiar with those themes. However, not everybody who makes a suggestion on TB is necessarily familiar with these. What will typically happen every now and then is that an FTer who is not familiar with TB has an idea for a new forum, posts that idea in another forum with which (s)he is familiar forum and is being told that the proper forum for discussion of this is TB topics. So the FTer pops along here with the proposal with little idea of how TB typically approaches the issue.

Given that a substantial part of TB topics discussion are on the creation or closure of fora, it seems to me that it would be helpful to have a sticky that provides some guidance as to the kind of considerations that TB is likely to take into account when deciding whether or not to create or close a forum, a kind of 10 or 15 things to think about when suggesting the creation of a new forum (or closure of a forum).

This would be guidance which would indicate the kind of things that members of TB generally tend to take into consideration although it would be made clear that this is an indicative, non-exhaustive list, that is not binding on TB members and that individual TB members may weigh different factors differently. This would have the advantage of making the person putting forward the proposal think about the kind of arguments and objections that are likely to be raised and formulate more solid proposals that take into account issues that they might not have thought of in the first place. Not sure whether this would be suitable for discussion at a meeting. It seems to me that this is something which is a longer term project, requiring drafting and refining but perhaps a meeting could at least consider whether it is a worthwhile project to engage into.

Agree w/ this. Since TB mtg was yest, no idea if it was discussed but I'd support it as a FT member for future.

Cheers.

Agree w/ this. Since TB mtg was yest, no idea if it was discussed but I'd support it as a FT member for future.

Cheers.

The meeting minutes will be posted - hopefully, IMHO, within the next week or so.

The meeting minutes will be posted - hopefully, IMHO, within the next week or so.

Yes, the TB members who were not present may also be keen to find out what decisions were taken there in their absence.

Yes, the TB members who were not present may also be keen to find out what decisions were taken there in their absence.

As there is no procedure in the rules for decisions to be made AT meetings, I am sure proposals will be made to be voted on in the normal way in due course.

As there is no procedure in the rules for decisions to be made AT meetings, I am sure proposals will be made to be voted on in the normal way in due course.

I see. Thanks for letting us know.

The meeting minutes will be posted - hopefully, IMHO, within the next week or so.

Just wondering, will the minutes still be posted?

Hopefully soon!

I am going to close this thread since the Talkboard meeting has happened; I am guessing they are not soliciting topics for that meeting. :)

A new thread can be started when the minutes are posted.