TalkBoard Topics - TalkBoard Meeting Summary April 23 2010

TalkBoard Meeting 2010
April 23, 2010
1PM to 5PM
Embassy Suites LAX South Hotel, Boardroom 405A
El Segundo, CA

Present: bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Spiff, Randy Petersen, Brent (IB Rep), Steph (IB Rep)
Absent: B747-437B, Radioman, skywalkerLAX

Internet Brands representatives joined us and introductions were made. Internet Brands stated that the majority of their interaction with FlyerTalk volunteers was with the Moderator Corps, moreso than the TalkBoard. Internet Brands did not fully understand the relationship of the TalkBoard with the membership. Internet Brands offered to answer any questions the TalkBoard had. Randy explained the history of the TalkBoard and its importance in determining the future of FlyerTalk. Randy explained he wanted to discuss the ambassador idea from a couple of years ago again. Randy mentioned membership growth has been increasing substantially since December and that we should soon hit a million threads.

It was brought up to Internet Brands that the membership would like to see Internet Brands chime in whenever possible, as we do not know what’s behind “the curtain.”

The agenda was introduced. Two errors in the current TalkBoard Guidelines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/11201712-post2.html) were pointed out. Specifically, in section 3, C.1.H, we suggested replacing "Flyertalk President" with "TalkBoard President," and in section C.ii.a. replacing "The President will also serve as" with "The President will also serve as or appoint." We agreed to discuss and vote on this online.

Internet Brands explained that they have been working with moderators in an effort to inform them of the changes that are important to users. However, for certain "behind the scenes" changes, like security updates, Internet Brands does not necessarily communicate these changes to the moderators. It was asked how Internet Brands saw the role of the TalkBoard in the future. Internet Brands said the concept of a member board is new to them and at first they found it hard to relate to. Internet Brands said they perceived us as being “Randy’s team,” but they now realize we are more than that. Internet Brands said we should tell them how we want to engage with them and they would be receptive, as they are still learning about what exactly we do. Internet Brands asked how the TalkBoard would like to be engaged.

It was mentioned that no one likes surprises and that asking for feedback would be great before making changes. It was also mentioned that asking for ideas and suggestions would be appreciated. Internet Brands mentioned they would work on this, switching their focus from figuring out the problems to optimization. Internet Brands is working on adding tools that add value to the user experience. Internet Brands recognized that the articles did not meet the standard required by the brand of FlyerTalk. As such Internet Brands has since stopped production until such a time when that standard can be met. It was mentioned that Internet Brands has spent a long time trying to fix search across the Internet Brands forums, even though it may not have seemed like it. Internet Brands has finally improved search across 15 of their websites.

Internet Brands mentioned that FlyerTalk is very different from all the other websites they manage in terms of the response and passion from members when it comes to changes, which they need to understand better.

It was mentioned that it would be nice if Internet Brands at least told the membership about changes in advance so that if any “red flags” were raised they could reconsider them. Internet Brands asked what the TalkBoard’s thoughts were on an Internet Brands only thread/forum. Most TalkBoard members mentioned it might be better if Internet Brands was simply active in Suggestions/Technical Issues forums or by communicating through and with the TalkBoard. It was ultimately suggested they garner feedback through the TalkBoard and announce changes in the Technical Issues forum.

The idea of announcing upcoming technical changes at the beginning of each month came up. The issue is that some updates are planned while others are unplanned. It was explained that Facebook Connect should have rolled out smoothly and was meant to encourage more sign ups, a goal that it accomplished. Internet Brands also explained they now have more resources to manage feedback.

Randy asked whether the TalkBoard wanted to look into the rules on campaigning again, but most TalkBoard members agreed the rules are fine the way they are. It was explained that more campaigning would detract from the community experience of FlyerTalk and take away from the TalkBoard’s focus. Randy explained the “I Voted” tags increased the number of voters substantially. The TalkBoard largely agreed that the silence is because things are going well on FlyerTalk.

The issue of formalizing the criteria for forum creation was brought up. The following basic criteria for forum creation were addressed:

Criteria for forum creation:
1. Beneficial to FlyerTalk?
2. Beneficial to a relationship with FlyerTalk (value proposition for FlyerTalk members in new forum)?
3. Is FlyerTalk the best place to discuss this?
4. Passionate following?
5. Critical mass anticipated/existing (traffic needed to get questions answered/presence of dedicated expert helpers)?
6. Is this the best place on FlyerTalk (how best to classify -- critical mass again)?
7. Will improve the signal to noise ratio (forum split)?

The issue of how to discuss forum closure came up. The idea of a comprehensive annual review of all forums was discussed. Randy offered to help the TalkBoard by running forum statistics once a year. It was agreed to further discuss the issue online. The idea of sub-forums for large programs was brought up, but it was determined that it would not add to the member experience. The TalkBoard agreed in not wanting to discourage members from asking specific questions, which led into the ambassador concept.

Randy explained that the ambassador concept has not gotten anywhere but he wanted to make it work. Randy asked for the TalkBoard’s feedback as to the specific functions of ambassadors.

The concept of not formalizing the ambassador program was also brought up by just encouraging members to be friendly, avoiding “status” conflict. The concept of a flame free thread for newbies to ask questions was raised. Randy said he was willing to give the TalkBoard whatever role they wanted in the program. It was suggested to have a few forums act as a trial for the idea, with the blessing of the moderators. The question as to whether this should only be on program specific forums or other forums as well came up. Randy asked each TalkBoard member whether they supported testing the idea. The TalkBoard suggested that all posts made in the “flame free” thread should be left there as opposed to being moved around.

Internet Brands spoke about the future of FlyerTalk and how they want to get to a “dream list” of things FlyerTalkers might find interesting, and from there pick the ones they know they could implement properly and dedicate resources to accordingly. Internet Brands mentioned possibly creating a tool that would simplify organizing Dos for members by making it a more integrated part of the website. Internet Brands mentioned they wanted to add value outside of the forum by improving speed and making the user experience better. Instead of just technical issues, they want to focus on growing FlyerTalk outside of the forum as it is so well managed as of now. Internet Brands said Facebook Connect was the first of such initiatives, and over time they hope to increase the engagement through social media.

The issue of online community chats with TalkBoard members was brought up again. The idea of having only some TalkBoard members participate was brought up, and all members were fine with that as long as it was clear they were representing themselves and not the TalkBoard as a whole. The idea of doing a chat after the minutes were posted also came up, and was something that was agreed would be a good idea.

The meeting was wrapped up. Randy mentioned that he still finds the TalkBoard to be relevant.

Action Items:

Scheduling for TalkBoard chat


Posting considerations to help members understand logic for forum creation & deletion and setting an annual review process for forum success


Develop and institute Ambassador program


The meeting adjourned at 5PM.

Thanks for sharing the minutes.

The issue of how to discuss forum closure came up. The idea of a comprehensive annual review of all forums was discussed. Randy offered to help the TalkBoard by running forum statistics once a year. It was agreed to further discuss the issue online.

^ I think this step is a positive one and glad to see it being discussed.

Thanks for sharing the minutes. :)

Great summary. Looks like the only person at the meeting willing to have their positions attributed by name was Randy. Why was everyone else afraid? Maybe we can expect that from IB employees, but it's kinda weird for elected representatives not to be willing to speak for attribution.

Great summary. Looks like the only person at the meeting willing to have their positions attributed by name was Randy. Why was everyone else afraid? Maybe we can expect that from IB employees, but it's kinda weird for elected representatives not to be willing to speak for attribution.

The minutes are more of a documentation of what was discussed, not necessarily a play-by-play of who said what...

Do you have any questions on a specific TB member's position on something? If so, please ask - I'll be happy to answer any questions on my positons.

For this meeting, as the notes indicate, we didn't really go into any in-depth discussion on current topics - keep in mind that this meeting was about a 5 hour meeting and with IB reps there, so there was focus on IB related items, as noted, moreso than specific issues that are being discussed in the public forum.

The comment came because I've never seen minutes of a meeting of an elected body where who said what wasn't identified, and everyone seems to think it's a triumph that TB actually published any minutes at all. Kind of has a 'star chamber' feel to it, don't you think? Reading this quote gives me further concerns:

It was ultimately suggested they [IB] garner feedback through the TalkBoard and announce changes in the Technical Issues forum.

I get the impression there that the TB wants to be the primary intermediary between the membership and IB. I'm not going to evaluate this idea, but should it happen, refusing to be held individually accountable does leave a bit of a bad taste.

Great summary. Looks like the only person at the meeting willing to have their positions attributed by name was Randy. Why was everyone else afraid? Maybe we can expect that from IB employees, but it's kinda weird for elected representatives not to be willing to speak for attribution.

There is no unwillingness on my part to have my comments identified by name. If you want to see the minutes rewritten to reflect this we can ask lucky if his records would enable this.

Great summary. Looks like the only person at the meeting willing to have their positions attributed by name was Randy. Why was everyone else afraid? Maybe we can expect that from IB employees, but it's kinda weird for elected representatives not to be willing to speak for attribution.

I was there. What questions do you have that I may answer for you about positions I have? It's rather curious you attribute your perception to fear before coming to any of us.

It's unfortunate that you've chosen to characterize a group of volunteers who gave up 4 hours, not counting travel or travel expense (albeit in rather good company) of their time to attend this meeting as "afraid" of anything.

The comment came because I've never seen minutes of a meeting of an elected body where who said what wasn't identifiedI serve as a corporate secretary (and for that matter, as Chairman of an entity as well, and as a director on other boards) and in neither case would I ever permit such detailed minutes as these. Minutes as such record decisions and demonstrate that specific topics were covered for liability mitigation and that's it.

This document was spontaneously developed by the TalkBoard Vice President to share the ideas discussed, not to attribute specific comments, but there was no claim or preference expressed by any member to excise specific attribution.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about my thoughts or positions taken at that meeting or elsewhere, just let me know what those are :)

The above minutes look fine to me. Gives everyone an overview of what was discussed, and any action items that might come out of the meeting. I don't need a then Spiff said, then gleff said, then Randy said, then IB said play-by-play.

Cheers.

Doesn't sound like an overwhelming vote of support for my suggestion, so I'll drop it. I do, however, generally believe accountability and openness is a good thing. Nor do I regard TB in the same category as a corporate board of directors where, as gleff points out, minutes are kept brief for liability mitigation.

A real challenge for FT lies ahead: how to keep the integrity of the site as Randy gradually ratchets back his involvement. This is unlikely to come from IB. The TB can be a key part of this process but needs to discuss it openly and accountably with those members concerned about the issue.

A real challenge for FT lies ahead: how to keep the integrity of the site as Randy gradually ratchets back his involvement. This is unlikely to come from IB. The TB can be a key part of this process but needs to discuss it openly and accountably with those members concerned about the issue.

I was there. What questions do you have that I may answer for you about positions I have? It's rather curious you attribute your perception to fear before coming to any of us.

It seems that answering a direct question posed to you concerning your remarks is a real challenge. I'll ask again:

What questions do you have that I may answer for you about positions I have?

Nor do I regard TB in the same category as a corporate board of directors where, as gleff points out, minutes are kept brief for liability mitigation.


I was reacting to your comment, "I've never seen minutes of a meeting of an elected body where who said what wasn't identified" and drawing a distinction that compared to any minutes I'd ever seen or approved these seemed downright flush with remarkable detail :)

These are minutes, a summary, not a transcript after all @:-)

I get the impression there that the TB wants to be the primary intermediary between the membership and IB. I'm not going to evaluate this idea, but should it happen, refusing to be held individually accountable does leave a bit of a bad taste.

I think there does need to be some sort of liason between IB & the membership and I think that TB could and should serve that role. I'm not sure that IB wants or needs an Only IB forum (like ORP) as the suggestions & technical fora are good for most items.

That said, this TB member doesn't want to see signficant change to FT or any major re-branding on FT - and I think that as member elected representatives, the TB should be considered by members and IB as a liason and sounding board for IB initiatives. I think the moderator team should also have a relationship with IB as well, but primarly for a technical (how to manage new features & technical aspects that may allow them to do their jobs better) rather than a content/directional relationship with IB.

It seems that answering a direct question posed to you concerning your remarks is a real challenge. I'll ask again:

What questions do you have that I may answer for you about positions I have?

As I said, I withdrew the request, but my concern was not about specific issues but about who raised what points as a form of insight into the goals of individual TB members -- so I guess if you still feel like it, you can state which of the points raised in the minutes were raised by you.

As I said, I withdrew the request, but my concern was not about specific issues but about who raised what points as a form of insight into the goals of individual TB members -- so I guess if you still feel like it, you can state which of the points raised in the minutes were raised by you.

Raised by me: As liaison to moderator team: TalkBoard meeting summary, purpose, and our plans to go forward with the ambassador program.

As I said, I withdrew the request, but my concern was not about specific issues but about who raised what points as a form of insight into the goals of individual TB members -- so I guess if you still feel like it, you can state which of the points raised in the minutes were raised by you.

I didn't really raise any specific points, but I definitely butted my thoughts in on every single one of them! ;) I may have been the one to suggest an annual forum review, but I didn't start the topic of forum open/closings - I think that was just an agenda item from member feedback in the other thread about this meeting.

I don't recall any significant disagreements in the meeting, at least not after we had a chance to discuss a given topic. All these subjects were non-controversial.

Had there been a major difference of opinion, then I could have seen a benefit to attaching names to the different positions. But as long as we all agree, why complicate lucky's job? We'd have to double his pay. :D