TalkBoard Topics - Comments Welcome, Voting Underway: Amend name of Flying Blue Forum

Moved by Markie and seconded by nsx

That the TalkBoard recommends that the name of the Flying Blue forum be amended to "Air France, KLM and other partners

This vote will close on November 22, 10 at 1:56 pm or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:

The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

So while there is already a thread and discussion on this general topic and it is safe to assume that TalkBoard members have reviewed that thread, this thread is about this specific motion. Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback.

A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

I have voted NO to this motion because of the way it is worded.

There is no "Flying Blue" forum right now, there is a "Flying Blue (Air France & KLM)" forum. This is the forum we intend to rename not "Air France, KLM and other partners" but rather "Flying Blue (Air France, KLM and other partners)".

This kind of sloppiness is what made TalkBoard the laughing stock of the entire user base during the Mileage Run debacle and here we are doing it all again.

This kind of sloppiness is what made TalkBoard the laughing stock of the entire user base during the Mileage Run debacle and here we are doing it all again.

A very valid point! ^

Wording aside, I'm curious how members feel about the concept of a subforum for the additional partners - which include Tarom, Kenya, and Air Europa.

Should they continue to be discussed in the parent forum, in the other EU and MidEast/Africa forum, or with in a subforum?

In this the KQ forum request thread, it seemed the mods expressed interest in a subforum.

If this motion were to be revised with it's proper wording for its intent, would the addition of a Flying Blue partners subforum make sense?

What about for Miles & More?

I have voted NO to this motion because of the way it is worded.

There is no "Flying Blue" forum right now, there is a "Flying Blue (Air France & KLM)" forum. This is the forum we intend to rename not "Air France, KLM and other partners" but rather "Flying Blue (Air France, KLM and other partners)".

This kind of sloppiness is what made TalkBoard the laughing stock of the entire user base during the Mileage Run debacle and here we are doing it all again.

And yet you're not offering any motion at all. How much easier it is to throw around words like 'sloppiness' when you don't offer anything else. Why not make a correct proposal of your own. I am sure bhatnasx would second it?

Wording aside, I'm curious how members feel about the concept of a subforum for the additional partners - which include Tarom, Kenya, and Air Europa.
I was surprised to see how this motion didn't address the subforum makeup at all, giving both the forum name and structure changes had been covered in the original discussion thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1138199-kq-needs-its-own-flying-blue-sub-forum-go-africa.html).

I was surprised to see how this motion didn't address the subforum makeup at all, giving both the forum name and structure changes had been covered in the original discussion thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1138199-kq-needs-its-own-flying-blue-sub-forum-go-africa.html).

I suspect there will be a sub-forum motion if/when this passes.

The technical wording may be flawed, but I support the spirit of the motion, and so I voted yes. We can have another vote to clear up the wording after this vote is done.

We can have another vote to clear up the wording after this vote is done.

Wait, shouldn't there first be a vote to identify whether there is a sense that something needs to be changed? I think how it works is for you guys to vote no on this one, then establish the sense that something should be done, and then be unable to agree what should be done. ;)

On balance, it was a year of progress. :rolleyes:

I was surprised to see how this motion didn't address the subforum makeup at all, giving both the forum name and structure changes had been covered in the original discussion thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1138199-kq-needs-its-own-flying-blue-sub-forum-go-africa.html).

Agreed. Unfortunately, I think was made a bit prematurely as it didn't include the subforum discussion.

Now that its out there, I do hope this thread title brings a little more attention & provides more feedback on the subforum idea.

Unfortunately, I think was made a bit prematurely as it didn't include the subforum discussion.

Now that its out there, I do hope this thread title brings a little more attention & provides more feedback on the subforum idea.
I do believe more attention and discussion about an improved version of another motion to cover both name & structure changes is on call. One good motion is plenty.

It seems to me this motion was put into action now so something would happen before new blood joins TB since the voting concludes on Nov 22nd. IMHO, it would be a bit awkward for the TBers-to-be to get a phase-two head start when they were "left out" during phase one. Unlike the recent "controversial" hot potato to reformat MR Discussion Forum/Thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html), I don't think this one should take any two-phase approach.

It may be a good thing & timing for all the TB candidates to chime in and warm up in this thread. Chances are name+structure of a new Flying Blue Forum will be the 1st motion for the new TB to work on.

This doesn't present a great picture of TB and its ability to work together, that a motion can be made and seconded before anyone actually points out that there is a problem with the change in wording.

Perhaps I'm being overly neat, but I think a third sub-forum for other airlines which fall under the FB umbrella makes sense.

Has any TB member started a thread in the FB forum seeking input from the members who use FB?

There's a problem with using other partners in the forum title because Flying Blue has two kinds of 'other partners'. A limited number of airlines accrue status miles and extension of existing miles life while other partners offer just a credit with no status. This is very different from the programs most of us are familiar with.

To misquote George Orwell's Animal Farm, some 'other partners' are more equal than others.

I find the proposal as worded misleading and would prefer to retain Flying Blue, the name of the program, with sub-forums as appropriate. This works with the Miles and More program mentioned above which doesn't have this problem.

Has any TB member started a thread in the FB forum seeking input from the members who use FB?

Wouldn't that be off-topic for the FB forum, which is intended for discussion of issues related to miles only? Issues related to TB actions should be posted and discussed in the TB forum.

There is also disagreement among the TB members as to whether TB has the authority to recommend any renaming decision or whether that is the purview of the Moderators, with TB simply rubber stamping their preference.

No, in the past it's been considered an appropriate method of alerting members who use that forum but might not read TB forum (afterall, with so little happening this year, why should they!), that TB is discussing changes which may affect the forum they hang out in. Kind of polite, and an opportunity to garner more feedback, neither of which are bad things?

IME, and I did start a fair few of these types of threads when I was on TB to ensure members were consulted, mods were always very helpful about this - afterall, they also have an interest in ensuring that the forum members are aware of potential changes to the forum. How the thread is managed is upto the mods - some would leave it live and bouncing around and some would sticky it for a while and close it....

There's a problem with using other partners in the forum title because Flying Blue has two kinds of 'other partners'. A limited number of airlines accrue status miles and extension of existing miles life while other partners offer just a credit with no status. This is very different from the programs most of us are familiar with.

To misquote George Orwell's Animal Farm, some 'other partners' are more equal than others.

I don't believe this is a problem, as the title merely indicates in which [first level] forum questions should be posted. Whether you earn miles that count for status with a partner will be discussed in various threads in the forum. I therefore support the proposed renaming.

I find the proposal as worded misleading and would prefer to retain Flying Blue, the name of the program, with sub-forums as appropriate. This works with the Miles and More program mentioned above which doesn't have this problem.

The Miles and More program currently has only one sub-forum for Swiss, and doesn't have one for other airlines, such as Austrian. So it isn't quite the same situation as for Flying Blue.

I would welcome the creation of a third sub-forum at the same time as the renaming of the main forum.

mods were always very helpful about this

Internal TB policies require that any interaction with the Mods be channeled through a single specific channel and that individual TB members have no interaction with Mods in official capacities.

And yet you're not offering any motion at all. How much easier it is to throw around words like 'sloppiness' when you don't offer anything else. Why not make a correct proposal of your own. I am sure bhatnasx would second it?

Markie, it seems to make sense to include "Flying Blue" in the name of the forum, and you don't appear to object to it, so why not simply make a motion amending your initial motion?

Internal TB policies require that any interaction with the Mods be channeled through a single specific channel and that individual TB members have no interaction with Mods in official capacities.
Really? Having served on TB for two years, I'm not aware of what those internal TB policies are.

When I was on TB, anyone could start a thread in a forum to draw attention to TB deliberations, and a number of us did so.

The whole point of writing the guidelines was to make all TB acts open and transparent.

Are there more secret policies been developed in the two years since the guidelines were passed? Why have the guidelines not been amended to reflect this?

Are there more secret policies been developed in the two years since the guidelines were passed? Why have the guidelines not been amended to reflect this?

I don't think there are any new policies, just differing interpretations of existing policies. There is a TalkBoard member appointed as a "Moderator Liaison" and any issues for the Moderators are supposed to be channeled through that person.

There is also disagreement among the TB members as to whether TB has the authority to recommend any renaming decision or whether that is the purview of the Moderators, with TB simply rubber stamping their preference.
Really? It doesn't seem to be a problem with this motion:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions/1062039-motion-passed-change-name-westjet-forum.html

If I read the original proposal/request thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1059574-request-westjet-passenger-perks-changed-westjet-frequent-guest-program.html) correctly, there wasn't any involvement from the MOD either.

If what you had described represents the dynamics of current TB, all I can (sadly) say is no wonder the current TB couldn't get much done when there's so much personal agenda going on behind the closed door. :(

If what you had described represents the dynamics of current TB, all I can (sadly) say is no wonder the current TB couldn't get much done when there's so much personal agenda going on behind the closed door. :(

TB members are human, nothing more and nothing less. As humans, they tend to develop ego problems and the longer they serve on TB the more that ego becomes a factor.

It is one of the reasons I have never voted for any TB member to serve a third consecutive term -- and why I, myself, refused to run for one.

I don't think there are any new policies, just differing interpretations of existing policies. There is a TalkBoard member appointed as a "Moderator Liaison" and any issues for the Moderators are supposed to be channeled through that person. There's a question about TB being slow which seems very apposite right now.

So you are telling me that because starting a new thread on a forum highlighting that TB are discussing things about the forum may involve talking to a mod, no-one is prepared to actually go and start that thread? Or is this an excuse which we should actually read as 'TB INTERNAL POLITICS'.

I mean, heaven forbid you (collectively) should put the duty to which you were elected - representing and listening to the members - above petty politics :rolleyes:

IMHO, the wording discrepancy is merely a cosmetic defect. I believe the intent of the proposal is completely unambiguous. I don't understand the fuss.

As to why the subforum was not addressed, one can reasonably surmise that discussions among the TalkBoard have not yielded sufficient consensus*. That's almost always the reason when the TalkBoard fails to vote on a subject raised in TalkBoard Topics. Every idea with significant support here is discussed among the TalkBoard.

*The logic is simple: consensus will yield a proposal every time. The contra-positive is that no proposal means that there is no consensus. Once in a while a proposal can occur without consensus, but that has no bearing on the preceding logic.

IMHO, the wording discrepancy is merely a cosmetic defect. I believe the intent of the proposal is completely unambiguous. I don't understand the fuss.


I am not trying to be a jerk, just honest. But isn't that what was stated with the MR troubles/revotes? That seemed to have a consensus and the motion passed, at least for a short time, despite the cosmetic defect.

Is it possible to change the motion now before the vote is over? Or at least vote it down and then make a proper worded proposal before the TB is changed? Wouldn't mind seeing this TB go out without the fuss.

I am not trying to be a jerk, just honest. But isn't that what was stated with the MR troubles/revotes? That seemed to have a consensus and the motion passed, at least for a short time, despite the cosmetic defect.

Is it possible to change the motion now before the vote is over? Or at least vote it down and then make a proper worded proposal before the TB is changed? Wouldn't mind seeing this TB go out without the fuss.

The MR trouble was an actual difference of interpretation of the intent. That's why I voted to rescind, even though I supported the change. We no longer had a consensus.

I think allowing the member making the motion to withdraw it at any time prior to completion of the vote is the cleanest way to fix this. Perhaps the TalkBoard will agree to change its guidelines to allow that in the future.

As I said, the wording discrepancy is minor. We're busy people and nobody noticed the problem during the several days it was discussed. Once there is a vote, everyone starts reading more closely and notices defects. That's human nature, and we will better next time.

But at least we have a common understanding: Everybody knows what the proposal intends. I don't see the value of taking a 2-week delay to perfect it. That's why I voted in favor of the proposal as is.

As I understand it, if you are still using Roberts Rules of Order as your guide, then you already have a process to allow for motion withdrawal.

I think allowing the member making the motion to withdraw it at any time prior to completion of the vote is the cleanest way to fix this. Perhaps the TalkBoard will agree to change its guidelines to allow that in the future.

I would welcome the creation of a third sub-forum at the same time as the renaming of the main forum.

I do believe more attention and discussion about an improved version of another motion to cover both name & structure changes is on call. One good motion is plenty.

In my opinion, had both things been rolled into one motion, I'm not optimistic it would have passed. I would have rather had at least the title changed than an utterly failed motion altogether, so I supported the idea to break them into two separate motions.

IMHO, the wording discrepancy is merely a cosmetic defect. I believe the intent of the proposal is completely unambiguous. I don't understand the fuss.

As to why the subforum was not addressed, one can reasonably surmise that discussions among the TalkBoard have not yielded sufficient consensus*. That's almost always the reason when the TalkBoard fails to vote on a subject raised in TalkBoard Topics. Every idea with significant support here is discussed among the TalkBoard.

*The logic is simple: consensus will yield a proposal every time. The contra-positive is that no proposal means that there is no consensus. Once in a while a proposal can occur without consensus, but that has no bearing on the preceding logic.

Agree wholeheartedly, and I think you've explained the process very well.

In my opinion, had both things been rolled into one motion, I'm not optimistic it would have passed. I would have rather had at least the title changed than an utterly failed motion altogether, so I supported the idea to break them into two separate motions.

Thanks for the helpful insight :).

Internal TB policies require that any interaction with the Mods be channeled through a single specific channel and that individual TB members have no interaction with Mods in official capacities.

I'm under the impression that that's if someone needs to act as a go-between for TB & the private moderator forum - not if someone wants to gather information about a forum change from the forum members. I don't see Jenbel's suggestion to be a problem at all & in the past it's been a good way for us to receive proper feedback.

Internal TB policies require that any interaction with the Mods be channeled through a single specific channel and that individual TB members have no interaction with Mods in official capacities.

I think the issue here is that only the TalkBoard chair can talk on behalf of TB. This prevents individual members of TB from starting threads soliciting feedback as this could be taken as an 'official' request.

Well, there is lots of historical precedent for TB members taking the intiative to start threads in the forums where changes are being discussed, so it would be hard to make the argument now that it shouldn't happen, when no motion has been passed forbidding that practice.

I've been saddened that it's a practice which has been dropped/abandoned. Asking the users of a forum about changes which are being discussed to their forum seems like good practice which should be encouraged to enable a wide a discussion as possible about those changes. Not doing it does allow TB to ignore the views of wider community as they remain in their little private huddle - but you were elected to represent us. Sometimes, that should include listening to us :(

So, are any of you actually going to go and start the thread in FB, or are you going to talk about why you shouldn't start the thread in FB until becomes too late to do so?

So, are any of you actually going to go and start the thread in FB, or are you going to talk about why you shouldn't start the thread in FB until becomes too late to do so?

Well, TalkBoard member jackal did raise the issue of the possible creation of a KQ sub-forum in the existing thread in the FB forum. The moderators have updated the information to include the link to this new thread.

Thanks, everyone, for the heads-up :).

Well, there is lots of historical precedent for TB members taking the intiative to start threads in the forums where changes are being discussed, so it would be hard to make the argument now that it shouldn't happen, when no motion has been passed forbidding that practice.

I've been saddened that it's a practice which has been dropped/abandoned. Asking the users of a forum about changes which are being discussed to their forum seems like good practice which should be encouraged to enable a wide a discussion as possible about those changes. Not doing it does allow TB to ignore the views of wider community as they remain in their little private huddle - but you were elected to represent us. Sometimes, that should include listening to us :(

So, are any of you actually going to go and start the thread in FB, or are you going to talk about why you shouldn't start the thread in FB until becomes too late to do so?

Agree completely and prefer the much more open and participatory TB approach of the past to current practice.

So, are any of you actually going to go and start the thread in FB, or are you going to talk about why you shouldn't start the thread in FB until becomes too late to do so?

I have requested the TB Moderator liaison to please approach the Moderators of the FB forum to seek their permission for us to post a thread there seeking the opinions of the members regarding their preference for the name of the forum. As mentioned earlier, it is not appropriate for individual TB members to directly engage the userbase (or Moderators) on issues such as this for risk of alienating or offending the Moderators.

I have requested the TB Moderator liaison to please approach the Moderators of the FB forum to seek their permission for us to post a thread there seeking the opinions of the members regarding their preference for the name of the forum. As mentioned earlier, it is not appropriate for individual TB members to directly engage the userbase (or Moderators) on issues such as this for risk of alienating or offending the Moderators.
as mentioned earlier, it is appropriate for individual TB members to do this and has always been appropriate.

If that position has changed from the accepted practice of TB 2+ years ago, can you refer me to the motion which has been passed outlawing this?

If that position has changed from the accepted practice of TB 2+ years ago, can you refer me to the motion which has been passed outlawing this?

Whether something is allowed or not allowed is not under TalkBoard's purview but rather the Moderators. If we continue to discuss this, it would constitute discussion of Moderator actions which as you know is not permitted. So sorry, but cannot help you here. :p

as mentioned earlier, it is appropriate for individual TB members to do this and has always been appropriate.

If that position has changed from the accepted practice of TB 2+ years ago, can you refer me to the motion which has been passed outlawing this?

There has been no motion that I can recall, but TB members are not permitted to talk on behalf of the TB, or to actions that could be considered to be on behalf of TB. Only the Chairman of TB is permitted to do this. Things may have been more flexible in your day, but those are gone now.

There has been no motion that I can recall, but TB members are not permitted to talk on behalf of the TB, or to actions that could be considered to be on behalf of TB. Only the Chairman of TB is permitted to do this. Things may have been more flexible in your day, but those are gone now.

Markie, I am not certain that I understand this and I think that it is important for all FTers.

There was once a time, before I joined TB, when members were pretty well restricted in what they could say and when they could say it.

This was changed by a TB vote during my term in office. The only restrictions we had were that we could not reveal what another TB member said in the private forum, we had to make it clear that we were posting our opinions as individual members and not on behalf of TB, and we could not publicly discuss an issue which Randy sought advice on without his consent.

I think that reform was an important one as TB represents the FT membership and this allowed the membership to know (and perhaps influence) the thinking of individual TB members.

Are you saying that this is no longer the case -- that new restrictions have been put on you and on what you can say? If so, who put those restrictions in place?

Well given we could go off and start threads two years ago, could you please tell me when the motion was passed between then and now, outlawing this practice. If not, someone's making up rules as they go along... that's not how it works.

Perhaps one of you should <gasp> try it and see if your acts get censured by the remainder of TB? It would take guts, I admit, but would also establish if the excuses you are making have any weight whatsoever.

And if someone has made up the rule, why then is the TB chairman not going out and starting threads to inform forums of what TB is considering doing to them? Or why is the Mod liaison not doing this?

All in all, the behaviour of TB through this is pathetic. All I'm seeing is a catalogue of excuses and blaming someone else - and no-one actually doing your duty which is to inform and consult the members :td:

... but TB members are not permitted to talk on behalf of the TB, or to actions that could be considered to be on behalf of TB.

Randy once said, all FTers are members first (& assuming all FTers are bound by FT TOS).

I don't think any TBer is representing the whole TB when s/he make a post in any forum. I know s/he posts as a FTers.

I don't think any TBer is taking action on behalf of TB when s/he makes a post or starts a thread outside TB Topics Forum. I know s/he posts as a FTers.

I also don't think a TBer is taking action on behalf of TB when s/he starts a pointer thread outside TB Topics Forum to seek input or feedback for issues raised in TB Topics Forum. This is just an individual TBer who reaches out to gather info from the general members before s/he makes informed decisions. IMHO, that is a great plus for any TBer. ^

Even when a TBer makes a post in TB Topics Forum, I don't and can't assume say TBer is talking on behalf of the TB. I know s/he is a TBer who speaks only for her/himself. (Some TBers would even put an acronym disclaimer to emphasize they only speak for themselves ;)) Unless say TBer has the authority to speak or post on behalf of TB in TB Topics Forum per TB Guidelines.

If one mod makes a post in a forum, I don't think nor assume s/he acts as a mod nor speaking on behalf of MOD. Unless say mod posts in the forum s/he moderates and make it clear a moderation move is made, this mod is just another FTer enjoying her/his posting privilege. When they play the role as MODs, they are bound by MODs' guidelines. MODs are nevertheless members first.

Same applies to TBers. TBers are members first and bound by Tb Guidelines when acting on their elected role.

I don't know where you get the idea that you could talk or act on behalf of the whole TB. You don't and you can't. OTOH, you can freely be your own boss to speak up as an individual TBer per TalkBoard Guidelines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/11201712-post2.html). Do the current TB have a little black codebook that the general members are not aware so you feel immobilized?

Randy once said, all FTers are members first (& assuming all FTers are bound by FT TOS).

II also don't think a TBer is taking action on behalf of TB when s/he starts a pointer thread outside TB Topics Forum to seek input or feedback for issues raised in TB Topics Forum. This is just an individual TBer who reaches out to gather info from the general members before s/he makes informed decisions. IMHO, that is a great plus for any TBer. ^

However, can imagine the confusion if we all posted in the same forum seeking input or feedback? Would you consider it of value to have several threads each asking for feedback?

However, can imagine the confusion if we all posted in the same forum seeking input or feedback? Would you consider it of value to have several threads each asking for feedback?

No one can disagree with that -- but it is true with any subject in any forum. Moderators routinely merge threads for that very reason.

I would expect a TB member to be familiar enough with FT to do a search before starting a thread about a particular issue. If one does err, the moderator of that forum could merge the new thread with the existing one.

This is not putting a lot on the shoulders of the mods. I tend to doubt that any one particular mod would find himself merging threads started by TB members more than once in any given year.

What Dov said.

However, can imagine the confusion if we all posted in the same forum seeking input or feedback? Would you consider it of value to have several threads each asking for feedback?
NOW I am confused.

Why would any TBer start another new thread asking the same thing when her/his fellow TBer has already taking an initiative to ask for feedback in say forum?

It's not a competition nor sibling rivalry. There's no TBer ownership of such threads. The 2nd (3rd, or more) TBer can simply post in the same thread and state, "I am listening too. You can either post in thread or PM me you ideas."

As a matter of fact, if I were a TBer and OPed such threads, I would also make it clear that FTers can contact all and any TBer (OP included), about their ideas/opinions so they can be heard.

THAT will only show the general memberships that TB is indeed collaborating and working together to better FT. Communication is open. Different opinions don't mean no collaboration. TBers can agree to disagree. And no one can take all the credit.

Why is it so difficult and impossible to listen to each other and work toward the betterment of FT right now? Everyone, TBers included, cannot be the boss all the time.

Moved by Markie and seconded by nsx:

That the TalkBoard recommends that the name of the Flying Blue forum be amended to "Air France, KLM and other partners

Yes:
jackal, Markie, nsx, skywalkerLAX 4 44%

No:
B747-437B 1 11%

Abstain:
bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Spiff 4 44%

Voters: 9.

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines, a motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

Ah, the beloved abstentions. :D Any TB who took that option care to explain why they did so?

Ah, the beloved abstentions. :D Any TB who took that option care to explain why they did so?

No need to vote on a motion that is about to be superseded. Close it out, move on to the vote that has been re-worded. Enough time has been spent on this general item. My vote on the second motion is the one that counts.

No need to vote on a motion that is about to be superseded. Close it out, move on to the vote that has been re-worded. Enough time has been spent on this general item. My vote on the second motion is the one that counts.
Ditto. :)

As one of the members who originally voted yes on the motion before the flaw in it was pointed out, I wholly agree with and support the other members' abstensions and see no reason to hold it against them. As Spiff said, the vote on the second motion is all that matters.

As Spiff said, the vote on the second motion is all that matters.

Yes, and apologies as I temporarily forgot which motion was which or which vote was which. I'll read the subtitles better next time. ;)