TalkBoard Topics - One more thing: TB Term Limits

How about it?

My suggestion would be 2 terms (4 years) followed by at least 2 years back in the muck with the rest of us.

Up with citizen-TB members rather than career-TB members!

Four years is a really long time. And from the election ballot each year it's obvious there are plenty of folks who wish to serve but are unable to overcome the advantages of incumbency.

Thoughts?


11 months later, there is a TB proposal to accomplish this. See post 127. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17597783-post127.html)

No thanks. It should be up to the voters to decide term limits.

Despite Spiff's outspoken opposition, I am quite confident that sufficient members of TalkBoard will support this motion in due course. I will table the motion at the appropriate time before the next election.

No thanks. It should be up to the voters to decide term limits.

Well sure, what would we expect Senator Byrd to say!? ;):p

While I voluntarily term-limited myself in the previous TB election after serving two terms, I don't think this should be legislated.

Let the voters decide who they want serving on TalkBoard.

While I voluntarily term-limited myself in the previous TB election after serving two terms, I don't think this should be legislated.

Let the voters decide who they want serving on TalkBoard.

I used to believe that as well, and think I said as much when I ran for the TB.

But through the TB process I came to the opinion that incumbency breeds complacency. New blood breeds new ideas. So does looking at the process from the outside for a year or two rather than being IN the sausage grinder year after year after year after year after year.

Some companies absolutely require even their highest performing employees to take a vacation every year because it provides the employee with perspective and ultimately increases efficiency. @:-)

Asking TB members to step back for a year or two after four long years on the job will only make them better should they desire to run again in the future.

My suggestion would be 2 terms (4 years) followed by at least 2 years back in the muck with the rest of us.

Four years is a really long time. And from the election ballot each year it's obvious there are plenty of folks who wish to serve but are unable to overcome the advantages of incumbency.


Despite Spiff's outspoken opposition, I am quite confident that sufficient members of TalkBoard will support this motion in due course. I will table the motion at the appropriate time before the next election.


But through the TB process I came to the opinion that incumbency breeds complacency. New blood breeds new ideas. So does looking at the process from the outside for a year or two rather than being IN the sausage grinder year after year after year after year after year.

Some companies absolutely require even their highest performing employees to take a vacation every year because it provides the employee with perspective and ultimately increases efficiency. @:-)

Asking TB members to step back for a year or two after four long years on the job will only make them better should they desire to run again in the future.

I belong to some professional associations that have a term limit of X amount of terms followed by Y time off before being able to run again at Z time.

It's designed to have talented people who are familiar w/ the org serve & use their wisdom to better the organization, but not end up w/ 'career' board members or 'cartels' (cartel isn't the right word, but I think you know what I mean) & also provide a break to those who serve so that they don't burn out. And it's worked quite well.

As B747-737B mentions, I think when this is brought up for a motion it would probably garner enough support.

In the interim, it would be interesting to hear from regular FTers and former TB members on their thoughts re: term limits.

Cheers.

Well sure, what would we expect Senator Byrd to say!? ;):p

LOL :D

Well sure, what would we expect Senator Byrd to say!? ;):p

Now you're really impugning me! Try Ron Paul. :cool:

I'm for term limits as it means a new perspective at regular intervals. Not saying the repeat TBers are jaded or lacking somehow as their experience and willingness to volunteer is appreciated, just that new blood will offer a different dynamic.

I belong to some professional associations that have a term limit of X amount of terms followed by Y time off before being able to run again at Z time.

It's designed to have talented people who are familiar w/ the org serve & use their wisdom to better the organization, but not end up w/ 'career' board members or 'cartels' (cartel isn't the right word, but I think you know what I mean) & also provide a break to those who serve so that they don't burn out. And it's worked quite well.

As B747-737B mentions, I think when this is brought up for a motion it would probably garner enough support.

In the interim, it would be interesting to hear from regular FTers and former TB members on their thoughts re: term limits.

Cheers.

Was CABAL the word you were thinking of? ;)

This general member would like to see as mentioned above , limits put in place and I would up the ante and make them retroactive!^ This would ensure a renewal of the talk board !

Was CABAL the word you were thinking of? ;)

This general member would like to see as mentioned above , limits put in place and I would up the ante and make them retroactive!^ This would ensure a renewal of the talk board !

It will be interesting to see B747's motion to see how he handles this. I am happy with retrospective limits. It would lead to significant change in TB in the fall.

In the interim, it would be interesting to hear from regular FTers and former TB members on their thoughts re: term limits.


I announced how I felt about this when I ran for my second term on TalkBoard. I said that if elected I would not seek a third term.

Cholula, IMHO, has been one of the most valuable TB members that I can remember but if he had run for a third consecutive term I would not have voted for him. He took a one-term break and as far as I was concerned, that started the clock all over again.

Of course, with Randy's departure, the situation changed. As I posted in another thread, I can't understand why anyone would serve as a volunteer member of TB or as a moderator. For pay? Yes, but not for IBB.

If for-profit corporations want people to work for them they should start writing paychecks.

I can't understand why anyone would serve as a volunteer member of TB or as a moderator. For pay? Yes, but not for IBB.

I don't view serving on TalkBoard as working for IB (I've never had any interaction with any IB employees) but rather working for the community. I'm happy to give a little bit of time on a voluntary basis to the community that has given me so much in return. YMMV.

I don't view serving on TalkBoard as working for IB (I've never had any interaction with any IB employees) but rather working for the community. I'm happy to give a little bit of time on a voluntary basis to the community that has given me so much in return. YMMV.

What you are actually doing, whether you realize it or not, is providing IBB with recommendations which you feel will make FT more profitable for them.

Moderators are spending many hours of their free time working to clean up posts, checking to see who is using a second handle, combining threads, and deleting spam. Yes, I often think that FT is over-moderated, but get rid of moderation completely and the board will be such a mess that it will be unusable -- and to protect its very large investment IBB will be forced to put mods on the payroll.

(Indeed, are there any IT experts willing to donate their expertise and time to IBB? I very much doubt it.)

Randy started FT from nothing. Yes, it was a business for him but it was also a labor of love. I can well understand FTers who wanted to help him and gave their time both as TB members and moderators. IBB has no such labor of love -- it is purely an investment for them. They should be paying those who work for them, just like any other business.

(Incidentally, on one thread someone asked if Carol is serving as a volunteer or is being paid. The answer to that question is none of my business, and I certainly would not have asked it, but given the responsibility and the workload that she has taken on I not only hope she is being paid, but I also hope that it is quite a high salary.)

Was CABAL the word you were thinking of? ;)

This general member would like to see as mentioned above , limits put in place and I would up the ante and make them retroactive!^ This would ensure a renewal of the talk board !

Nope. Just thought of it - clique, inner closed circle, etc. Not cartel or cabal.

I probably wouldn't support retroactive, although I would most likely support a break between serving as is done w/ some professional organizations to which I belong (and have served on their boards).

I don't view serving on TalkBoard as working for IB (I've never had any interaction with any IB employees) but rather working for the community. I'm happy to give a little bit of time on a voluntary basis to the community that has given me so much in return. YMMV.

Agree w/ B747-437B.

Cheers.

Agree w/ B747-437B.

Cheers.

Agreed as well!

This is how I sort of look at it...I'm here because I care about the community & I enjoy this community.

Pretend that IB is the government. Pretend that you live in a particular neighborhood. People participate in Neighborhood Watch programs or Community Cleanup days...why to give back to the community & make it a better place.

I don't see me as feeding the IB coffers - they're not charging me for this service & I'm not charging them for mine. Are they making money? Maybe - but as long as they're interested in member input, I'm happy to provide as this is a community that has benefited me & I've made some amazing friends & met some wonderful people through this community...

Now, as for term limits - I'm with the folks that think the market should decide - I'm happy to volunteer my service & view myself as an engaged member. Out of the 4 people that were voted into office, this past election, I was in "4th place" (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1153326-2010-talkboard-election-results.html) - had I not been voted in, I would have been happy as the community selected the people they want to represent them.

And presumably if the community decides that they prefer term limits you (and presumably ofther TB members) will be ok w/ that, given we represent the community. I realize you can't speak for other TB members, but I know I would.

I also know that I think it should be offered up to the FT community for discussion when the time is right, as well as the TB, and I will promote that.

For what it's worth & it sounds weird given I'm now a TB member, but for the most part I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm fine either way.

I've served on professional associations' boards that did have a xx year on, yy year off before running for zz time again. And it worked for those groups - and believe me, they had a lot more at stake than this BB does. ;) We do have to put some things into perspective.

Cheers. Sharon

Some companies absolutely require even their highest performing employees to take a vacation every year because it provides the employee with perspective and ultimately increases efficiency.Weak analogy. We're not a company and our volunteer advisory panel doesn't spend upwards of 60 hours a week in joint sessions.

While I voluntarily term-limited myself in the previous TB election after serving two terms, I don't think this should be legislated.

Let the voters decide who they want serving on TalkBoard.Hear hear!

In the interim, it would be interesting to hear from regular FTers and former TB members on their thoughts re: term limits.
Dunno if I tally as a regular FTer in your book but I'm of the same mind as Cholula -- don't arbitrarily limit voters' choices.

Agree 100% on term limits. Votes are not given to those most suitable, they are given to those most popular. Those that post the most, post to a blog or moderate are obviously the most active on the board, and those names are the ones that get the attention.

Limit to two terms, and even consider limiting the number of "positions" a member can hold on Flyertalk.

I don't view serving on TalkBoard as working for IB (I've never had any interaction with any IB employees) but rather working for the community. I'm happy to give a little bit of time on a voluntary basis to the community that has given me so much in return. YMMV.

Agree 100%.

Agree 100% on term limits. Votes are not given to those most suitable, they are given to those most popular. Those that post the most, post to a blog or moderate are obviously the most active on the board, and those names are the ones that get the attention.

Limit to two terms, and even consider limiting the number of "positions" a member can hold on Flyertalk.

Really? I can't speak for others, but I was named the runner-up well before I was even approached about being a moderator, I post to no [currently active, worth-reading] blog, and I'm not an FT Evangelist. And I can guarantee you that at the time I ran for TalkBoard, virtually no one in the top, say, 5 forums on FlyerTalk had ever heard of me.

All that said, I'm not necessarily opposed to term limits.

Now you're really impugning me! Try Ron Paul. :cool:

I cannot compare you to Ron Paul on the issue of term limits. Because you are nothing like him.

Ron Paul supports term limits. (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10943) You oppose them.

Let the voters decide who they want serving on TalkBoard.

The problem with this IMHO is that voters see name recognition with the same people running and serving year after year. If FT members are not aware of some candidates, it may be easier to vote for who they recognize. There may be a lot of talented FT members who would like to run for TB but hesitate to do so because they may feel there is no chance they will win against established TBers.

In all the non-profits I have worked for there were term limits with 4 years maximum and then a break for Board members. It allowed other members of to serve and contribute to the leadership of their organization.

While there has been discussion on the relevance of the TB , it would be nice to see other FT members serve.

Fresh perspectives after all.

The problem with this IMHO is that voters see name recognition with the same people running and serving year after year. If FT members are not aware of some candidates, it may be easier to vote for who they recognize. There may be a lot of talented FT members who would like to run for TB but hesitate to do so because they may feel there is no chance they will win against established TBers.

I don't disagree with you but how does this differ from, say, a national political election?

There were undoubtedly tens of thousands of Americans better qualified to be President than the several candidates who ran in the last election. But they didn't run and weren't elected because people didn't know who they were.

Folks vote for who they know and who they trust. It's been that way since the beginning of time and erecting term limit barriers is not going to correct this. Folks are still going to vote for who they know and trust.

And just "being known" is no certain pass to getting on TB. I knew a lot of folks in the last election and some of them did not get my vote nor the vote of very many others.

Folks vote for who they know and who they trust. It's been that way since the beginning of time and erecting term limit barriers is not going to correct this. Folks are still going to vote for who they know and trust.

I don't disagree to your point here. However, if there were term limits it would give others a chance to serve. I feel the TB over the years has done a tremendous job, and sometimes thanklessly so.

Nonetheless, if others are allowed to serve then that expands the TB perspective and gives less well-known FTers a chance to give back to their much beloved community. It is possible to elect less well-known members who will then prove themselves to be capable and trusted.

I don't disagree with you but how does this differ from, say, a national political election?

There were undoubtedly tens of thousands of Americans better qualified to be President than the several candidates who ran in the last election. But they didn't run and weren't elected because people didn't know who they were.

Folks vote for who they know and who they trust. It's been that way since the beginning of time and erecting term limit barriers is not going to correct this. Folks are still going to vote for who they know and trust.

And just "being known" is no certain pass to getting on TB. I knew a lot of folks in the last election and some of them did not get my vote nor the vote of very many others.

I think the more apt comparison is to professional associations than national elections. And most of those have term limited board positions in order to maximize participation and new ideas.

Governance literature tends to reinforce the idea of fixed terms as a “best practice” for not-for-profit boards after doing a pro-con analysis.

Here's a pretty good example of a pros and cons list that steers most folks to support term limits on boards:

By: BoardSource (http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.1240)
Many boards find that setting term limits can be beneficial. The following are some advantages of a term limit policy:

•The board has the possibility of working with active community members who can devote only a few years to board service.
•Bringing diversity onto the board is easier.
•The board has a built-in balance of continuity and turnover.
•Passive, ineffective, or troublesome board members can be more easily rotated off.
•Board members experience a better rotation of committee assignments.
•A regular infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives is brought onto the board.
•The board gains a regular awareness and pays attention to the changing group dynamics.
•Limits present an opportunity for the board and the retiring board member to reassess a mutual willingness to continue working together with the possibility of enlarging the circle of committed supporters by keeping retired board members involved.

Disadvantages of term limits
The downside to having terms limits can mean:
•the loss of expertise and organizational memory;
•the board spends more time dedicated to recruitment and orientation; and
•additional efforts are needed to keep the group cohesive.

Disadvantages of not having term limits
Boards without a term limit policy can experience:
•stagnation if no change occurs among the board members;
•perpetual concentration of power within a small group;
•intimidation of the occasional new member;
•tiredness, boredom, and loss of commitment by the board; and
•loss of connection to the constituency due to a change in demographics or environmental factors

Here's a pretty good example of a pros and cons list that steers most folks to support term limits on boards:

Thanks.

That's a thought-provoking list.

Ron Paul supports term limits. (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10943) So did Strom Thurmond. One of the funniest political memories I have was watching a Strom Thurmond stump speech in 1996.

Now, mind you that at the time the man had served over 40 years in the Senate already.

He said, "I believe in smaller government... and term limits."

And as if that weren't enough, without a touch of irony he continued, "And you're gonna vote for me, because I can bring more money to South Carolina in the next six years.. than my opponent could in 60!"

I pledge that I have very little in common with Strom Thurmond. I suspect we all support term limits at some outer bounds, adn the only question is of degree or length.

See, Strom Thurmond really shouldn't have served through January 2003...

My suggestion would be 2 terms (4 years) followed by at least 2 years back in the muck with the rest of us.

Can we expect this topic to come up for a vote with the new Talk Board?

Can we expect this topic to come up for a vote with the new Talk Board?

Elections have consequences! ^;)

Elections have consequences! ^;)

I'm for the 2-term limit followed by 2 years off the TB, as I mentioned in the debate.

Elections have consequences! ^;)

Is today the day you discovered the magic of cut-and-paste?

I support term limits and to add more angst to the list - not permitting moderators to be on TB. As much as Randy's tag line of "they are members first" gets bandied about, let's face it, they're not.

That's not a dig at the mods at all, some of them are my best friends :D I just want to see a true representation of pure members only on the TB.

I support term limits and to add more angst to the list - not permitting moderators to be on TB. As much as Randy's tag line of "they are members first" gets bandied about, let's face it, they're not.

That's not a dig at the mods at all, some of them are my best friends :D I just want to see a true representation of pure members only on the TB.

+ 1 Well said Mary!

I'm for the 2-term limit followed by 2 years off the TB, as I mentioned in the debate.

There may turn out to be 6 votes for this. koko's post 26 is pretty compelling.

I support term limits and to add more angst to the list - not permitting moderators to be on TB. As much as Randy's tag line of "they are members first" gets bandied about, let's face it, they're not.

That's not a dig at the mods at all, some of them are my best friends :D I just want to see a true representation of pure members only on the TB.

That whole discussion is IMHO better saved for a separate thread.

I support term limits and to add more angst to the list - not permitting moderators to be on TB. As much as Randy's tag line of "they are members first" gets bandied about, let's face it, they're not.

That's not a dig at the mods at all, some of them are my best friends :D I just want to see a true representation of pure members only on the TB.I completely agree with you on both points ^ and especially the latter (and I said just that while running for TalkBoard)

FWIW, I'd rather see moderator term limits than TB term limits...the TB members are voted into place...the mods are not.

FWIW, I'd rather see moderator term limits than TB term limits...the TB members are voted into place...the mods are not.

Ah, but that is beyond TalkBoard's purview. ;)

I'm not into term limits on FT for either mods or TB members.

We have a very small number of active members on the website regardless of the number of registered members. And I'm happy that anyone chooses to serve in either capacity considering the payscale and the amount of work and potential abuse that comes with the positions.

Now if we want to discuss term limits for the folks who really affect our lives, the elected officials of the various countries throughout the world, I'll see you in OMNI/PR. :)

I'm not into term limits on FT for either mods or TB members.

We have a very small number of active members on the website regardless of the number of registered members. And I'm happy that anyone chooses to serve in either capacity considering the payscale and the amount of work and potential abuse that comes with the positions.

Now if we want to discuss term limits for the folks who really affect our lives, the elected officials of the various countries throughout the world, I'll see you in OMNI/PR. :)

Well said. ^

I'm not into term limits on FT for either mods or TB members.

We have a very small number of active members on the website regardless of the number of registered members. And I'm happy that anyone chooses to serve in either capacity considering the payscale and the amount of work and potential abuse that comes with the positions.

Now if we want to discuss term limits for the folks who really affect our lives, the elected officials of the various countries throughout the world, I'll see you in OMNI/PR. :)

I quite agree. ^ (though mods are beyond our purview) ;)

We have a very small number of active members on the website regardless of the number of registered members. And I'm happy that anyone chooses to serve in either capacity considering the payscale and the amount of work and potential abuse that comes with the positions.

:like: ^

There's always a commentary about the "payscale" of mods & TB members...From my 5 years as TB'er, the only "pay" we ever got was a 1 time small stipend towards covering travel expenses to a TB meeting. From what I understand, some mods recieve elite status in some programs....so may not have a physical salary, but don't let it be said that there are no benefits to being a mod.

That said, most do serve our community well - but there are some that should be forced a break to remember what it's like to be a member....

Yes, moderation is out of the purview of the TB and with no "ORP" style forum anymore, there's no public place to discuss it. I actually would love to see Moderation be within the purview of the TB - it'd give us more to do than create forums and bicker about post counts counting or putting restrictions on member access....which is basically what all of our motions seem to be about...

Back on-topic, which is term limits for TB members ;)

I support term limits. I haven't decided yet if I'll run again next year, but if I do I would voluntarily term myself off after that if we don't put something in place to automatically term someone off after 2 terms.

To quote myself from earlier in the thread:

"I belong to some professional associations that have a term limit of X amount of terms followed by Y time off before being able to run again at Z time.

It's designed to have talented people who are familiar w/ the org serve & use their wisdom to better the organization, but not end up w/ 'career' board members or 'cartels' (cartel isn't the right word, but I think you know what I mean) & also provide a break to those who serve so that they don't burn out. And it's worked quite well."

And to quote myself again in response to someone else)

"And presumably if the community decides that they prefer term limits you (and presumably ofther TB members) will be ok w/ that, given we represent the community. I realize you can't speak for other TB members, but I know I would.

I also know that I think it should be offered up to the FT community for discussion when the time is right, as well as the TB, and I will promote that.

For what it's worth & it sounds weird given I'm now a TB member, but for the most part I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm fine either way.

I've served on professional associations' boards that did have a xx year on, yy year off before running for zz time again. And it worked for those groups - and believe me, they had a lot more at stake than this BB does. ;) We do have to put some things into perspective."

And to quote koko quoting BoardSource:

"Here's a pretty good example of a pros and cons list that steers most folks to support term limits on boards:

By: BoardSource
Many boards find that setting term limits can be beneficial. The following are some advantages of a term limit policy:

•The board has the possibility of working with active community members who can devote only a few years to board service.
•Bringing diversity onto the board is easier.
•The board has a built-in balance of continuity and turnover.
•Passive, ineffective, or troublesome board members can be more easily rotated off.
•Board members experience a better rotation of committee assignments.
•A regular infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives is brought onto the board.
•The board gains a regular awareness and pays attention to the changing group dynamics.
•Limits present an opportunity for the board and the retiring board member to reassess a mutual willingness to continue working together with the possibility of enlarging the circle of committed supporters by keeping retired board members involved.

Disadvantages of term limits
The downside to having terms limits can mean:
•the loss of expertise and organizational memory;
•the board spends more time dedicated to recruitment and orientation; and
•additional efforts are needed to keep the group cohesive.

Disadvantages of not having term limits
Boards without a term limit policy can experience:
•stagnation if no change occurs among the board members;
•perpetual concentration of power within a small group;
•intimidation of the occasional new member;
•tiredness, boredom, and loss of commitment by the board; and
•loss of connection to the constituency due to a change in demographics or environmental factors"

Cheers.

For most subjects, I favor gaining a consensus prior to voting. On this subject, I believe that a public vote would serve the FT membership by showing where we stand. It also provides the best airing of the arguments pro and con.

That said, I'd like the proposal to be very accurately worded before it is put up for vote. A loss due in part to imprecision or incompleteness will be worse than no vote at all.

From what I understand, some mods recieve elite status in some programs.

Love to know who they might be!

Love to know who they might be!

Well, from what I understand (from a moderator, directly) Hyatt did give those that attended a recent moderator meeting elite status for starters...

Well, from what I understand (from a moderator, directly) Hyatt did give those that attended a recent moderator meeting elite status for starters...

Really? If that's true, that's unfortunate.

I don't know if that's true or not as I haven't attended any recent Mod meetings. And nobody I know who did attend the last one mentioned receiving elite status.

The only thing I've received as a mod recently was a $5 Amazon Gift Card from IB last Christmas which was a 50% cut in gift $$'s from the previous year when Randy sent me a $10 Starbucks card for Christmas.

And I've received zero for my six years on TB and I don't expect anything for volunteering in either capacity. I do believe that IBB's are going to have to start compensating folks that serve in various positions in the future but that's a topic for another thread.

That's ok, I got a $10 Starbucks card when I stepped down from TB - althoguht that was back in Randy's day, all you may need to go do is step down to get your TB bennies ;) which brings us back nicely to topic.

I can see a reasonable argument for term limits - limiting the number of consecutive terms, rather than absolute number could be a good thing.

Really? If that's true, that's unfortunate.

I attended a Hyatt party for FTers (any and all FTers) at the Andaz in Los Angeles. Hyatt gave everyone gift cards ($100 plus $50 restaurant credit) and had a drawing for a TRIP TO LONDON. That's way more than just elite status. Is that unfortunate, too?

Some companies like to give back to FT at every opportunity. I don't see the business sense in it, but it's their decision.

Do I like Hyatt more because they gave me a gift card? Sure. Would it stop me from criticizing decisions I believe are wrong? Absolutely not. If anything, it would make me MORE likely to try to set the company straight when they make a bad decision. That's win-win.

I really don't see any problem here, real or potential.

I attended a Hyatt party for FTers (any and all FTers) at the Andaz in Los Angeles. Hyatt gave everyone gift cards ($100 plus $50 restaurant credit) and had a drawing for a TRIP TO LONDON. That's way more than just elite status. Is that unfortunate, too?

Some companies like to give back to FT at every opportunity. I don't see the business sense in it, but it's their decision.

Do I like Hyatt more because they gave me a gift card? Sure. Would it stop me from criticizing decisions I believe are wrong? Absolutely not. If anything, it would make me MORE likely to try to set the company straight when they make a bad decision. That's win-win.

I really don't see any problem here, real or potential.

You don't see the perceived conflict of interest of a moderator who has the ability to delete negative posts about a company that has given them money in the past?

Would you allow UA Insider to moderate the United forum?

You don't see the perceived conflict of interest of a moderator who has the ability to delete negative posts about a company that has given them money in the past?

Would you allow UA Insider to moderate the United forum?

A company employee has divided loyalties. An FT moderator has loyalty only to FT members. It's impossible that a token gift would induce any moderator to act against the best interest of FT members.

Here's a better example of the issue. Suppose a company offers an FT moderator the chance to review and comment on a program change while the parameters of the change are still fluid. This can only be done under a non-disclosure agreement. Should the moderator agree?

I say yes. The chance to improve the program for all members outweighs any loss of ability to speculate on the changes before they occur.

You might not agree with my opinion, but regardless of that the decision will be made with the best interest of FT members being the only consideration. There is no conflict of interest. Perception of conflict is only possible from an absurdly jaundiced perspective. Or from that rare person who could be bribed by a $100 gift card to betray his fellow FTers.

A company employee has divided loyalties. An FT moderator has loyalty only to FT members. It's impossible that a token gift would induce any moderator to act against the best interest of FT members.

Here's a better example of the issue. Suppose a company offers an FT moderator the chance to review and comment on a program change while the parameters of the change are still fluid. This can only be done under a non-disclosure agreement. Should the moderator agree?

I say yes. The chance to improve the program for all members outweighs any loss of ability to speculate on the changes before they occur.

You might not agree with my opinion, but regardless of that the decision will be made with the best interest of FT members being the only consideration. There is no conflict of interest. Perception of conflict is only possible from an absurdly jaundiced perspective. Or from that rare person who could be bribed by a $100 gift card to betray his fellow FTers.

Perception is reality. Something may, in actuality, be burnt umber, but if everyone else says it's brown, it's brown.

A company employee has divided loyalties. An FT moderator has loyalty only to FT members. It's impossible that a token gift would induce any moderator to act against the best interest of FT members.

Here's a better example of the issue. Suppose a company offers an FT moderator the chance to review and comment on a program change while the parameters of the change are still fluid. This can only be done under a non-disclosure agreement. Should the moderator agree?

I say yes. The chance to improve the program for all members outweighs any loss of ability to speculate on the changes before they occur.

You might not agree with my opinion, but regardless of that the decision will be made with the best interest of FT members being the only consideration. There is no conflict of interest. Perception of conflict is only possible from an absurdly jaundiced perspective. Or from that rare person who could be bribed by a $100 gift card to betray his fellow FTers.

I wish I could live in your black&white world.

Off-topic:

I'm not a mod. But from what I've heard, the inexpensive Starbuck gift cards at holiday time & a very small stipend to go towards defraying the cost of attending an all-day working mod meeting are about the only things mods get. Well that and a bunch of grief from FTers ;) :p :D

Re: the Andez West Hollywood launch event - ALL FTers in attendance received a $100 Hyatt gift card. There was no distinction between mod or not. You just had to be an attendee. The person who won the trip to London was an FT newbie.

On-topic:

I support term limits. I'd say 2 terms on, and either 1 year or 1 term off.

Cheers.

Off-topic:

I'm not a mod. But from what I've heard, the inexpensive Starbuck gift cards at holiday time & a very small stipend to go towards defraying the cost of attending an all-day working mod meeting are about the only things mods get. Well that and a bunch of grief from FTers ;) :p :D

Re: the Andez West Hollywood launch event - ALL FTers in attendance received a $100 Hyatt gift card. There was no distinction between mod or not. You just had to be an attendee. The person who won the trip to London was an FT newbie.

On-topic:

I support term limits. I'd say 2 terms on, and either 1 year or 1 term off.

Cheers.

What about the reports of gifted elite status?

What about the reports of gifted elite status?Not that this is relevant to TB term limits but I've never been gifted elite status because of my standing on FT.

Off-topic:

What about the reports of gifted elite status?

So far there's been speculation by some or 'reports' that the mods received elite status, but I've not seen any concrete evidence presented by those reporting/speculating.

The mods are saying they haven't received elite status, and I believe them. And really, there are approx 90 mods from different parts of the world & different airline/hotel/rental car affiliations. It'd be a little hard to come up with something that would match them all.

On a dif note - given that FT is growing, I thought IB giving $5 Starbucks gift cards to the mods rather than $10 was a bit chintzy.

If someone is concerned about possible conflicts of interest w/ mods & hotel/airline/car rental companies, I'd recommend they contact the Community Director of FT.

On-topic:

Still supporting term limits.

Cheers.

Off-topic:

(snip)

On a dif note - given that FT is growing, I thought IB giving $5 Starbucks gift cards to the mods rather than $10 was a bit chintzy.



Frankly, IMHO, it is rather ridiculous for anyone to donate his time to a profit-making corporation. I am certain, of course, that Macy's would love to have volunteer sales help (especially in December), Delta would greatly appreciate having a few hundred people work as FAs for free, and McDonald's would like nothing better than for folks from the neighborhood to clean up each evening.

In fact, these companies wouldn't even complain about giving $25 Starbucks Gift Cards.

I am a mod on a non-travel related forum, run by a business which is smaller than IB, and which has traffic that compares in posting to about the level of the Religious Travel Forum. I am paid $500 a month and have been assured that if the forum ever really takes off my pay will be increased proportionately.

I really could understand it back when Randy owned FT. He was considered a friend by many posters and the forum was not seen (very possibly incorrectly) as a business venture.

Today, it is a completely different story.

Still, if for ego-building, power-tripping, or any other reason people want to give a corporation their labor for free, that is their own decision. It is simply not one I would take.

Off-topic:



So far there's been speculation by some or 'reports' that the mods received elite status, but I've not seen any concrete evidence presented by those reporting/speculating.

The mods are saying they haven't received elite status, and I believe them. And really, there are approx 90 mods from different parts of the world & different airline/hotel/rental car affiliations. It'd be a little hard to come up with something that would match them all.

If someone is concerned about possible conflicts of interest w/ mods & hotel/airline/car rental companies, I'd recommend they contact the Community Director of FT.


I would suggest you read the posts on this thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1266198-do-tb-member-get-any-undisclosed-perks-ib-travel-companies.html

And it would be nice if Carol would answer PM's on this topic. Mine went ignored.

Still, if for ego-building, power-tripping, or any other reason people want to give a corporation their labor for free, that is their own decision. It is simply not one I would take.And yet I seem to recall you not only volunteering to work for a large for-profit company, but asking about the possibility of doing so again!

I still have the navy blue suit I bought for the October event as well as my white Delta shirt, so I am set up.

And it would be nice if Carol would answer PM's on this topic. Mine went ignored.

That, in and of itself, may be a response to your concerns on this matter. @:-)

That, in and of itself, may be a response to your concerns on this matter. @:-)

I kind of wish you'd quit saying that. It's highly dismissive and presumes to speak for the CD which I don't believe any of us should presume to do. @:-)

I kind of wish you'd quit saying that. It's highly dismissive and presumes to speak for the CD which I don't believe any of us should presume to do. @:-)

That, in and of itself, may be a response to your concerns on this matter.

Note the bolded words. That's hardly speaking for someone else; it's a hypothesis.

I kind of wish some members would stop using this forum to complain about matters that are not TalkBoard's purview. I guess we can't always get what we want...

And yet I seem to recall you not only volunteering to work for a large for-profit company, but asking about the possibility of doing so again!

Yup, and I had a lot of fun doing it.

Of course, that had a lot to do with the fact that it was for one morning only. I would also enjoy being a cop, working as a hotel receptionist, or being a bartender -- for one day.

If someone wants me to work on a regular basis, however, that is a different story completely.

That, in and of itself, may be a response to your concerns on this matter. @:-)

Which is another example of the general dismissive attitude of many mods (including you) to the concerns of the FT membership. Shame to see it to extend to the Director.

Which is another example of the general dismissive attitude of many mods (including you) to the concerns of the FT membership. Shame to see it to extend to the Director.

You're complaining in the wrong location (once again), and given your attitude, it may be the case (hypothesis) that your PM was ignored for a reason. @:-)

Dismissive of the membership? Hardly.

Dismissive of certain members due to their hostile, negative attitude? Sure. :)

You're complaining in the wrong location (once again), and given your attitude, it may be the case (hypothesis) that your PM was ignored for a reason. @:-)

Dismissive of the membership? Hardly.

Dismissive of certain members due to their hostile, negative attitude? Sure. :)

Moderator Prizes
I believe that a list of moderators that received "door prizes" from companies whose forums they may moderate should be provided to the members of the bulletin board, so that members can be aware of the possible introduction of bias as those moderators perform their duties.

---

Yeah, real hostile. :rolleyes:

Frankly, IMHO, it is rather ridiculous for anyone to donate his time to a profit-making corporation. I am certain, of course, that Macy's would love to have volunteer sales help (especially in December), Delta would greatly appreciate having a few hundred people work as FAs for free, and McDonald's would like nothing better than for folks from the neighborhood to clean up each evening.

In fact, these companies wouldn't even complain about giving $25 Starbucks Gift Cards.

I am a mod on a non-travel related forum, run by a business which is smaller than IB, and which has traffic that compares in posting to about the level of the Religious Travel Forum. I am paid $500 a month and have been assured that if the forum ever really takes off my pay will be increased proportionately.

I really could understand it back when Randy owned FT. He was considered a friend by many posters and the forum was not seen (very possibly incorrectly) as a business venture.

Today, it is a completely different story.


Interesting. When the subject of Mod compensation came up the other day, I did a mental exercise of what a stipend should be. Figuring an average workload of a few hours per week doing everything from keeping rabble-rousers in check to deleting spambots, $500/month seemed to be the sweet spot if I wanted to address what someone's billable time may be worth. But looking at the number of Mods on a site the size of FT, that would be a big chunk of change. So if N965VJ.com had a BB big enough for as many Mods that FT does, I would elect to have moderation done inhouse by salaried staff.

At least that's what I would do on the 2011 era interweb stating with a clean slate.

But the commercialization of the net was relatively new in 1998 when FT was started, considering Usenet newsgroups had been around for 15 years already. I recall some Usenet veterans in the mid 90s not particularly pleased with efforts to capitalize the sharing of information, so maybe that's the spirit some see in volunteering their time on commercial sites today. Even when AOL and CompuServe were communities unto themselves (remember when a CompuServe address couldn't email an AOL address?), the only compensation moderators of those places saw was something like free access time.

Interesting. When the subject of Mod compensation came up the other day, I did a mental exercise of what a stipend should be. Figuring an average workload of a few hours per week doing everything from keeping rabble-rousers in check to deleting spambots, $500/month seemed to be the sweet spot if I wanted to address what someone's billable time may be worth. But looking at the number of Mods on a site the size of FT, that would be a big chunk of change. So if N965VJ.com had a BB big enough for as many Mods that FT does, I would elect to have moderation done inhouse by salaried staff.

At least that's what I would do on the 2011 era interweb stating with a clean slate.

But the commercialization of the net was relatively new in 1998 when FT was started, considering Usenet newsgroups had been around for 15 years already. I recall some Usenet veterans in the mid 90s not particularly pleased with efforts to capitalize the sharing of information, so maybe that's the spirit some see in volunteering their time on commercial sites today. Even when AOL and CompuServe were communities unto themselves (remember when a CompuServe address couldn't email an AOL address?), the only compensation moderators of those places saw was something like free access time.

Apparently that was Randy, Tommy, Gary and Ed's initial decision when they started MilePoint: go with internal staff moderation only (all the better to keep their related non-profit and commercial ventures front and center, doncha know).

Of course they quickly realized that it was dumb to not use free labor and went to the MP Guide approach, who are NOT (repeat NOT!!!) moderators, but still kind of are:

What tools will I have at my disposal?
Because Guides are not disciplinary, the administrative tool set required and provided is very limited. You will have access to the following administrative tools:
* You will have the ability to Stick and Unstick threads. As we move forward with the implementation of the milepoint wiki, this particular tool will likely become less relevant and needed.
* You will have the ability to assist members by editing posts made in the forums. Cases when this might be used include editing posts that contain personally identifying information, or posts that contain fully re-printed articles, which can be edited to shorten and provide a proper link to the source.
* You will also have the ability to edit posts made to a member's profile.
* You will have access to the Spam Cleaner

In any case, I would say the volunteer FT moderator corps are here to stay and generally do a great job. Should there be term limits so that mods spend some time as a regular poster every so often? I'm on record as yes. Because just like TB members, mods have a different FT experience and relative perception than regular joe posters.

I think Moderators and TB Members in a sense have earned their dues.. by demoting, or having the hard working members become regular members again, is a downgrade to the hard work, and volunteer efforts demonstrated..

I have no opinion, but to leave things status quo until a logical solution is figured out.. Volunteers are the backbone of FlyerTalk.. and much of the valuable information presented has no profit tied to it, even though FlyerTalk is a paid advertised website.:)

Volunteers are the backbone of FlyerTalk.. and much of the valuable information presented has no profit tied to it, even though FlyerTalk is a paid advertised website.:)

I strongly disagree. Volunteers (be they mods or TB members) would be of absolutely no value if it were not for the thousands of members who post on a regular basis. They are the ones who provide FT's worth and are its real backbone.

Moreover, the posts they make do, indeed, have profit tied to them. They are to FT what tourist sites are to Venice -- without them, nobody would come and IB would have an empty "city" and no profits at all.

That being said, I would be the last to deny that mods do, in fact, work and should be paid for their labor. In fact, I will get just about everybody upset by making the following statements:

1. By working for free, the mods are cheapening themselves. They are, in essence, saying, "I don't get any money and that is exactly what I am worth."

2. When you and I subject our writing to the scrutiny, review, and possibly disciplinary action of unpaid volunteers, we are saying that what we post is not valuable enough to warrant handling by professionals.

3. When IB does not pay moderators, it is announcing that it does not care enough about the content of FT to pay the cost of having impartial professionals determine its quality.

1. By working for free, the mods are cheapening themselves. They are, in essence, saying, "I don't get any money and that is exactly what I am worth."

2. When you and I subject our writing to the scrutiny, review, and possibly disciplinary action of unpaid volunteers, we are saying that what we post is not valuable enough to warrant handling by professionals.

3. When IB does not pay moderators, it is announcing that it does not care enough about the content of FT to pay the cost of having impartial professionals determine its quality.

Personally I volunteer in a number of areas - not just Flyertalk. I sit as an (unpaid) School Governor, (unpaid) Justice of the Peace, (unpaid) Assessor for Chartered Membership of the British Computer Society. I personally don't feel that any of your views, about being unpaid somehow making the experience wrong, to be true.

Personally I volunteer in a number of areas - not just Flyertalk. I sit as an (unpaid) School Governor, (unpaid) Justice of the Peace, (unpaid) Assessor for Chartered Membership of the British Computer Society. I personally don't feel that any of your views, about being unpaid somehow making the experience wrong, to be true.

In short, you volunteer for local government offices and for a professional organization (to which, I presume, you belong).

That is fine and commendable. I do, however, see a great difference between that and if you had told me you do volunteer work as a claims adjuster for an insurance company, an engineer for BP, or a pilot for BA.

Frankly, if I put in an insurance claim, am a driller on an oil rig, or am a passenger of a plane, I would feel much more comfortable knowing that a professional whose income depends on him doing good work is the person on the job.

Note the bolded words. That's hardly speaking for someone else; it's a hypothesis.

I kind of wish some members would stop using this forum to complain about matters that are not TalkBoard's purview. I guess we can't always get what we want...

It seems we deserve the ones we elect:D

You might consider your wording posted as TB pres, might- just might give that impression. But of course you are technically correct. Main problem is however that you seem to not only understand but also defend the no-reply behaviour.

You're complaining in the wrong location (once again), and given your attitude, it may be the case (hypothesis) that your PM was ignored for a reason. @:-)

Dismissive of the membership? Hardly.

Dismissive of certain members due to their hostile, negative attitude? Sure. :)

You again make my and others point much better than I could have said it^


Hostile? I guess you either have more knowledge than me, or might be more sensitive?

I've always wondered if a particular TB member had a keyboard shortcut for purview. Ctrl-P, perhaps?

I know I'm happy to discuss any topics, purview be damned -- if the CD doesn't appreciate that, I will be happy to be told that directly. By her.

There's a whole lot of history that suggests that the TB, in the past, discussed quite a bit more than forum creation and deletion. Arguing that something isn't in the purview of the TalkBoard stifles discussion and is only a response that's started in the last few years.

I strongly disagree. Volunteers (be they mods or TB members) would be of absolutely no value if it were not for the thousands of members who post on a regular basis. They are the ones who provide FT's worth and are its real backbone.

Moreover, the posts they make do, indeed, have profit tied to them. They are to FT what tourist sites are to Venice -- without them, nobody would come and IB would have an empty "city" and no profits at all.

That being said, I would be the last to deny that mods do, in fact, work and should be paid for their labor. In fact, I will get just about everybody upset by making the following statements:

1. By working for free, the mods are cheapening themselves. They are, in essence, saying, "I don't get any money and that is exactly what I am worth."

2. When you and I subject our writing to the scrutiny, review, and possibly disciplinary action of unpaid volunteers, we are saying that what we post is not valuable enough to warrant handling by professionals.

3. When IB does not pay moderators, it is announcing that it does not care enough about the content of FT to pay the cost of having impartial professionals determine its quality.

In short, you volunteer for local government offices and for a professional organization (to which, I presume, you belong).

That is fine and commendable. I do, however, see a great difference between that and if you had told me you do volunteer work as a claims adjuster for an insurance company, an engineer for BP, or a pilot for BA.

Frankly, if I put in an insurance claim, am a driller on an oil rig, or am a passenger of a plane, I would feel much more comfortable knowing that a professional whose income depends on him doing good work is the person on the job.

We'll agree to disagree.. I think that FT wouldn't be possible without the endless hours volunteers put into the forum to make it work.

I've always wondered if a particular TB member had a keyboard shortcut for purview. Ctrl-P, perhaps?Isn't CTRL-P as short cut for Player, as in team player, as in possessing and exercising the ability to work with others (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17394995-post14.html).

Apologies for singling this post out but this public sparing between TB members makes for very unpleasant reading.

Isn't CTRL-P as short cut for Player, as in team player, as in possessing and exercising the ability to work with others (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17394995-post14.html).

Apologies for singling this post out but this public sparing between TB members makes for very unpleasant reading.

I will work with anyone, but I won't accept "it's not in our purview" as the final word, sorry. Working with others doesn't mean I'll agree with the other TB members and I don't intend to hide my differences in the private forum.

But I appreciate your opinion and your right to express it.

I will work with anyone, but I won't accept "it's not in our purview" as the final word, sorry. Working with others doesn't mean I'll agree with the other TB members and I don't intend to hide my differences in the private forum.

But I appreciate your opinion and your right to express it.

I appreciate that you're willing to share your opinions and and any differences with others on TalkBoard with the public, rather than hiding that in the private forum.

I will work with anyone, but I won't accept "it's not in our purview" as the final word, sorry. Working with others doesn't mean I'll agree with the other TB members and I don't intend to hide my differences in the private forum.

But I appreciate your opinion and your right to express it.Agreed on all points ^.

I will work with anyone, but I won't accept "it's not in our purview" as the final word, sorry. Working with others doesn't mean I'll agree with the other TB members and I don't intend to hide my differences in the private forum.

But I appreciate your opinion and your right to express it.

Bravo! Perfectly spoken.

I will work with anyone, but I won't accept "it's not in our purview" as the final word, sorry. Working with others doesn't mean I'll agree with the other TB members and I don't intend to hide my differences in the private forum.

But I appreciate your opinion and your right to express it.
But, it would be really rather more professional to do it without mud slinging.

I'm not sure how the smart comments are really good coming from someone who in this role is in a leadership position - if that's your view of what FT should be, then I'm not sure I want it perpetuated. If the only way you can argue is by disparagement, that's going to be rather entertaining for us to read, but actually, won't be that productive. You need to learn to work with each other despite personal differences.

But, it would be really rather more professional to do it without mud slinging.

I'm not sure how the smart comments are really good coming from someone who in this role is in a leadership position - if that's your view of what FT should be, then I'm not sure I want it perpetuated. If the only way you can argue is by disparagement, that's going to be rather entertaining for us to read, but actually, won't be that productive. You need to learn to work with each other despite personal differences.

Speaking of mudslinging, I dont see any disparagement from RichMSN. But he was elected by the membership, while moderators are not, so if there is to be a discussion of the roles of leadership, that might be a fine place to start.

I do think that certain people are heavily invested in a status quo. They may have a tussle on their hands.

Democracy is messy, but it is also effective.

You might not - others might have different standards of courtesy? I'd like my elected representatives to work to a high standard when posting on here, not a low one.

You might not - others might have different standards of courtesy? I'd like my elected representatives to work to a high standard when posting on here, not a low one.

Nice to have a moderator naming a TB member to have low standard, while if the TB member chose to reply about the mod he could be banned^

Im probably from a different planet than some of you mods/TB pres etc, but I personally find that VERY disturbing:td:

Disclaimer: I love FT, and its my favourite site. 99%+ great, but with big room for enhancement.

Nice to have a moderator naming a TB member to have low standard, while if the TB member chose to reply about the mod he could be banned^

Im probably from a different planet than some of you mods/TB pres etc, but I personally find that VERY disturbing:td:

Disclaimer: I love FT, and its my favourite site. 99%+ great, but with big room for enhancement.
I think you've rushed to conclude based on an incorrect reading of my post.

"I would like my elected representatives to " is expressing a desire of what I would like to see happen. If you read that as I'm saying RichMSN has a low standard, then that is entirely your own (incorrect) reading. I did not, and nor did I mention any TB members in my post - although I am responding to a statement of RichMSN's which I found disconcerting. I'm expressing a hope for the future behaviour of TB members in public, not passing judgement on current standards.

Is it wrong to ask our elected representatives to refrain from taking pot shots at each other on here - particularly so early in the term?

I will work with anyone, but I won't accept "it's not in our purview" as the final word, sorry. Working with others doesn't mean I'll agree with the other TB members and I don't intend to hide my differences in the private forum.

But I appreciate your opinion and your right to express it.

Well said!

I think you've rushed to conclude based on an incorrect reading of my post.

"I would like my elected representatives to " is expressing a desire of what I would like to see happen. If you read that as I'm saying RichMSN has a low standard, then that is entirely your own (incorrect) reading. I did not, and nor did I mention any TB members in my post - although I am responding to a statement of RichMSN's which I found disconcerting. I'm expressing a hope for the future behaviour of TB members in public, not passing judgement on current standards.

Is it wrong to ask our elected representatives to refrain from taking pot shots at each other on here - particularly so early in the term?


That is exactly how I read your statement.

TB nor mods will see me post here again as it really doesn't matter. I would think there are quite a few posters like me that would want to see things get better around here but the only opinions that seem to be taken seriously are the Evangelists, the TB and the Mods.

In short, you volunteer for local government offices and for a professional organization (to which, I presume, you belong).

That is fine and commendable. I do, however, see a great difference between that and if you had told me you do volunteer work as a claims adjuster for an insurance company, an engineer for BP, or a pilot for BA.

Frankly, if I put in an insurance claim, am a driller on an oil rig, or am a passenger of a plane, I would feel much more comfortable knowing that a professional whose income depends on him doing good work is the person on the job.

You think being a Mod on Flyertalk is equivalent to a claims adjuster, an engineer or a pilot?

Trust me - it's not.

However, your assertion that "volunteer" equals badly trained, or unprofessional is incorrect.

You think being a Mod on Flyertalk is equivalent to a claims adjuster, an engineer or a pilot?

Trust me - it's not.

However, your assertion that "volunteer" equals badly trained, or unprofessional is incorrect.

A volunteer has less motivation to do the job correctly than does someone whose livlihood depends on it.

Indeed, ask anyone who is familiar with the U.S. court system if an attorney appointed by the court to defend someone without charge (or at a minimal payment) will put in the same time and effort that he would if he was getting paid.

The sad, but human, truth is that he will not.

A volunteer has less motivation to do the job correctly than does someone whose livlihood depends on it.Curious opinion. Not one that I hold but I do appreciate your candor.

A volunteer has less motivation to do the job correctly than does someone whose livlihood depends on it.

Indeed, ask anyone who is familiar with the U.S. court system if an attorney appointed by the court to defend someone without charge (or at a minimal payment) will put in the same time and effort that he would if he was getting paid.

The sad, but human, truth is that he will not.

My experiences with this are that this is pretty much true, especially if the volunteer or employee is feeling that they aren't sure if they want to continue in that role. If they are questioning if they want to continue, the volunteer is more likely to just not do as great a job, because, their income isn't tied to it. An employee is more likely to continue doing the best they can because, even if they want to get out of that field, they'll still need to use that employer as a reference, and in the meantime, still need the paycheck.

Apologies for singling this post out but this public sparing between TB members makes for very unpleasant reading.

You might not - others might have different standards of courtesy?

I'm sorry that you feel that way; I see nothing disrespectful, unprofessional, etc. about a healthy public debate between TB members.



I appreciate that you're willing to share your opinions and and any differences with others on TalkBoard with the public, rather than hiding that in the private forum.
Agreed 100%. ^



I think Moderators and TB Members in a sense have earned their dues.. by demoting, or having the hard working members become regular members again, is a downgrade to the hard work, and volunteer efforts demonstrated..

Demoting? :confused: When a FTer was made a Mod of a forum I frequent, I expressed my condolences publicly. :D

I
Demoting? :confused: When a FTer was made a Mod of a forum I frequent, I expressed my condolences publicly. :D

:D..

Came out a bit funny.. but how else would you describe it with mods? Somebody forcing you to step down, when you just want to do your job?

Mods are a stable workforce, who hardly get the accolades for the hard work they deserve.. A nail in the coffin to introduce new restrictions.. FT needs new and more mods so that new forums can be introduced and served.. but I'm a newbie, so maybe my opinion is a bit fresh?:)

:D..

Came out a bit funny.. but how else would you describe it with mods? Somebody forcing you to step down, when you just want to do your job?

Mods are a stable workforce, who hardly get the accolades for the hard work they deserve.. A nail in the coffin to introduce new restrictions.. FT needs new and more mods so that new forums can be introduced and served.. but I'm a newbie, so maybe my opinion is a bit fresh?:)

Except that the entire process is closed. I've received a number of PMs from loyal and regular posters who have applied to be mods only to be told that "we have enough mods" or that "they aren't suitable to be mods" without any further explanation and yet some mods have 3-4 forums under their remit.

You say stable. Other say stagnant. Tomato, tomahto.

Except that the entire process is closed. I've received a number of PMs from loyal and regular posters who have applied to be mods only to be told that "we have enough mods" or that "they aren't suitable to be mods" without any further explanation and yet some mods have 3-4 forums under their remit.

My advice to people in that position is to send a PM to the Community Director volunteering to help in any capacity in any forum. That could lead somewhere good.

Mods are a stable workforce, who hardly get the accolades for the hard work they deserve.. A nail in the coffin to introduce new restrictions..

:confused: Huh? In one post you say no new restrictions on Mod's yet in this post (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17573075-post175.html) you say they should be subject to new regulations to be directed by TB:

my feel is that the moderators should remain autonomous, but input to direction be provided by the TB.

Which is it?

A volunteer has less motivation to do the job correctly than does someone whose livlihood depends on it.

Indeed, ask anyone who is familiar with the U.S. court system if an attorney appointed by the court to defend someone without charge (or at a minimal payment) will put in the same time and effort that he would if he was getting paid.

The sad, but human, truth is that he will not.

I think the comes down to the character of the person. If they are happy with doing a bad job, I am not sure they'd do a good job if they were paid a fortune. I know volunteers who spend hours doing the very best job they can - being trained, at their own expense. And that's not just on FT.

I have no doubt you sincerely hold your views, but they denigrate the work of all volunteers as being second class and that I cannot agree with.

I have no doubt you sincerely hold your views, but they denigrate the work of all volunteers as being second class and that I cannot agree with.

That's OK. Nobody paid him to comment. He's a volunteer. According to his theory, that's why his commentary is all bollixed up. ;)

I think the comes down to the character of the person. If they are happy with doing a bad job, I am not sure they'd do a good job if they were paid a fortune. I know volunteers who spend hours doing the very best job they can - being trained, at their own expense. And that's not just on FT.

I have no doubt you sincerely hold your views, but they denigrate the work of all volunteers as being second class and that I cannot agree with.

Your post illustrates my point. You are well-educated and articulate yet you made two (minor) grammatical errors in it.

You are not alone. I am a professional writer and my posts are full of such errors and tons of typos.

I suspect that when you write for business purposes there are no such mistakes. I know that I not only use spell check but I also run my words through Word to see if it has any problem with my grammar.

(I also wait an hour before submitting any work so as to allow myself to proof it with fresh eyes,)

We take this extra care because we are being paid to produce the most professional work in all aspects. When we come to FT (or do any other kind of unpaid writing) we are nowhere near as careful.

That's OK. Nobody paid him to comment. He's a volunteer. According to his theory, that's why his commentary is all bollixed up. ;)

Actually, you are right. I was commenting on exactly that but you hit the "Submit" button before I did.

Actually, you are right.

You say I'm right that you're wrong. But since you're wrong, that must also be wrong. So you're right...

:D:D:D

My head hurts. I'm going to bed!

Except that the entire process is closed. I've received a number of PMs from loyal and regular posters who have applied to be mods only to be told that "we have enough mods" or that "they aren't suitable to be mods" without any further explanation and yet some mods have 3-4 forums under their remit.

You say stable. Other say stagnant. Tomato, tomahto.
By my count, which may be off a bit as I've not even finished my first cup of coffee yet, there are 38 moderators who moderate only 1 forum.

There are 29 moderators who moderate 2 forums.

There are 10 who moderate 3 forums.

There are 7 who moderate 4 or 5 forums.
My advice to people in that position is to send a PM to the Community Director volunteering to help in any capacity in any forum. That could lead somewhere good.
Or, that could lead to the "We have enough mods in those forums now," or the, "We don't think you're suitable as a mod," PM. Once they've completed their moderator application and have received a "Thanks, but no thanks," email or response via PM, as the system exists now, they have no other recourse.

Your post illustrates my point. You are well-educated and articulate yet you made two (minor) grammatical errors in it.

You are not alone. I am a professional writer and my posts are full of such errors and tons of typos.

I suspect that when you write for business purposes there are no such mistakes. I know that I not only use spell check but I also run my words through Word to see if it has any problem with my grammar.

(I also wait an hour before submitting any work so as to allow myself to proof it with fresh eyes,)

We take this extra care because we are being paid to produce the most professional work in all aspects. When we come to FT (or do any other kind of unpaid writing) we are nowhere near as careful.

Yet the one person who used to post here for profit (in the millions) often posted rambling, ponderous posts laced with grammatical, spelling and logic errors.

Not saying your point is generally correct or not, just pointing out a data point in conflict with it.

Or, that could lead to the "We have enough mods in those forums now," or the, "We don't think you're suitable as a mod," PM. Once they've completed their moderator application and have received a "Thanks, but no thanks," email or response via PM, as the system exists now, they have no other recourse.

I said "volunteering to help in any capacity in any forum". So your first part doesn't match the request. As to the lack of recourse, when you PM the Community Director, you are going to the top. She is the final authority, and by definition there is no further recourse.

That applies to any request from anyone on FT on any subject. All businesses run this way. You accept the decision of the person at the top or you fire that person. No picking and choosing allowed.

Hey folks - the topic is possible term limits for TB members - just a reminder!

If people would like to get back to the actual topic of the thread, it would be much appreciated. Derailing it w/ all the mod talk doesn't provide TB members input they need when considering term limits. Just sayin...

If someone goes back to the beginning of the thread (pre-derailment), they'll see input both for/against (and both sides made some valid points). Since it's being raised again, I at least would like to hear FT member's thoughts on it.

Cheers.

I said "volunteering to help in any capacity in any forum". So your first part doesn't match the request. As to the lack of recourse, when you PM the Community Director, you are going to the top. She is the final authority, and by definition there is no further recourse.

That applies to any request from anyone on FT on any subject. All businesses run this way. You accept the decision of the person at the top or you fire that person. No picking and choosing allowed.
Perhaps people want to volunteer as a moderator, and receive those responses I mentioned before.

What is wrong with adding additional options for recourse, especially if those additional options rotate out due to term limits? That gives greater chance for new ideas to be shared.

While "not in TalkBoard's purview," I favor not only term limits on TalkBoard members but also term limits on moderators. Give more people a chance to help by serving FT and I think you'll see increased engagement.

I do think that one of the reasons for such a low voter turnout was because to some, it was more of the same people running for the same positions.

Perhaps people want to volunteer as a moderator, and receive those responses I mentioned before.

What is wrong with adding additional options for recourse, especially if those additional options rotate out due to term limits? That gives greater chance for new ideas to be shared.

While "not in TalkBoard's purview," I favor not only term limits on TalkBoard members but also term limits on moderators. Give more people a chance to help by serving FT and I think you'll see increased engagement.

I do think that one of the reasons for such a low voter turnout was because to some, it was more of the same people running for the same positions.

Also, another factor is FTers don't know where to go to see platforms and vote.. It could be the perception of a difficult process that deters..

Also, another factor is FTers don't know where to go to see platforms and vote.. It could be the perception of a difficult process that deters..

That shouldn't have been the case as IIRC there was a sticky notice on every forum about the election and candidate debates.

How could the process have been any simpler?

The "debates" were posted in all forums for a few weeks... and then the voting announcement was also posted at the top of each forum.

We then had avatars that told people there was an election going on.

Not sure how anyone who wanted to vote would have had difficulty finding the platforms and voting mechanism.

Also, another factor is FTers don't know where to go to see platforms and vote.. It could be the perception of a difficult process that deters..

That shouldn't have been the case as IIRC there was a sticky notice on every forum about the election and candidate debates.

How could the process have been any simpler?

The "debates" were posted in all forums for a few weeks... and then the voting announcement was also posted at the top of each forum.

We then had avatars that told people there was an election going on.

Not sure how anyone who wanted to vote would have had difficulty finding the platforms and voting mechanism.

Perhaps a banner ad in color would help.. or a survey by those who use FT, to determine the reasons why members don't vote. As obviously, the turnout has been less than expected..

Most users probably are on FT for points and miles reference and overlook the opportunity to vote..

Perhaps a banner ad in color would help.. or a survey by those who use FT, to determine the reasons why members don't vote.

You're really reaching now as IMHO there was enough notice given about the TB elections. Regardless this thread isn't about that topic, it's about TB term limits.

You're really reaching now as IMHO there was enough notice given about the TB elections. Regardless this thread isn't about that topic, it's about TB term limits.

What do you think causes over 99% of the voters not to vote?

What do you think causes over 99% of the voters not to vote?

A lack of interest.

A lack of interest.

+1

But again that's not the topic up for discussion here, which is TB term limits.

I do think there is a connection.... you could argue that we should not limit terms since so few people are interested and know about Talkboard to begin with.... :)

Personally, I waver on this... but probably come down on not limiting terms... why "punish" people who want to serve... the voting booth is a way to curb term limits if the members truly want it.

To me, I am more concerned when an elected member chooses to not participate fully... thus depriving their constituents of true representation. The current guidelines give no easy and "quick" way to deal with this.

+1

But again that's not the topic up for discussion here, which is TB term limits.

I actually think a year is long enough.

Forums need new people and fresh ideas

I actually think a year is long enough.

Forums need new people and fresh ideas

Are you saying a year inbtwn terms or a 1 year term? :confused:

TB terms are 2 years, with each year either 4 or 5* TB slots up for election.

* 4 or 5 is dependent on if it's an even or an odd year.

Cheers.

Personally, I waver on this... but probably come down on not limiting terms... why "punish" people who want to serve... the voting booth is a way to curb term limits if the members truly want it.Personally, I don't think "punish" is what the intent or effect would be. If the TB is supposed to be an advisory board to help provide the CD (and IB) with possible FT improvements, then getting a diversity of backgrounds/thoughts/personalities into the TB is actually a good way to help provide new ideas. Otherwise we can end up with the same people providing the same ideas and little to no improvement occurs.

But I do completely agree with your second point that apathy/lack of involvement/whatever can creep into the TB. And lack of involvement would be just as bad, if not worse, than having the same people staying on the TB.

Are you saying a year inbtwn terms or a 1 year term? :confused:

TB terms are 2 years, with each year either 4 or 5* TB slots up for election.

* 4 or 5 is dependent on if it's an even or an odd year.

Cheers.


I know they are 2 Years...but i still think one is a good idea...and that you can't be elected twice in a row. Just seems fairer and again brings in new blood

Personally, I don't think "punish" is what the intent or effect would be. If the TB is supposed to be an advisory board to help provide the CD (and IB) with possible FT improvements, then getting a diversity of backgrounds/thoughts/personalities into the TB is actually a good way to help provide new ideas. Otherwise we can end up with the same people providing the same ideas and little to no improvement occurs.

Or you get people on the TB who think FT is "pretty darned good as it is" and don't think the TB needs to do much, if anything.

Or you get people on the TB who think FT is "pretty darned good as it is" and don't think the TB needs to do much, if anything.

FT is indeed "pretty darned good as it is", which means we have to work harder to find ways to improve it. All the easy improvements have been done.

FT is indeed "pretty darned good as it is", which means we have to work harder to find ways to improve it. All the easy improvements have been done.

My statement had 2 parts. I'm not saying that the first part is incorrect -- I'm saying that concluding that the TB doesn't have to do much because of it *is* incorrect.

Here is the current draft text for term limits, plus a technical correction to another paragraph that currently calls for a nugatory runoff after a 5-4-0 (or even 5-4-0-0) vote for TalkBoard officer positions. And if there's one thing we don't want to be, it's nugatory!

I'd like any comments here on whether we have misstated anything or left any glaring loopholes. Also I want to be clear that this proposal, unlike most of the ones I work on, does not have consensus support. I might or might not pass. I really don't know. It's just that IMHO persuading a body to term limit itself is quite difficult, and we might as well take the shot while we have it.


The TalkBoard recommends modifying the TalkBoard guidelines as follows:

Add a new paragraph 3.B.i.e.
e. TalkBoard members who are subject to the term limit defined in Section 3.D.i shall be ineligible to be candidates in the current year.

Revise paragraph 3.D.i
i. TalkBoard Member: The term of a TalkBoard member shall be two (2) years. There is no limit to the consecutive or cumulative number of terms to which a member may be re-elected. Five TalkBoard members shall be elected during odd numbered years and four TalkBoard members shall be elected during even numbered years. Term Limit: A FlyerTalk member is ineligible to be a candidate in the current TalkBoard election if by the end of the election period the member will have served on the TalkBoard more than three years out of the preceding four-year period.

Revise paragraph 3.B.ii.c in a techinical correction:
c. The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering more than 2/3 of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than 2 candidates in the primary vote and receive votes but none receives 2/3 of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect.

Revise paragraph 3.D.i
i. TalkBoard Member: The term of a TalkBoard member shall be two (2) years. Five TalkBoard members shall be elected during odd numbered years and four TalkBoard members shall be elected during even numbered years. Term Limit: A FlyerTalk member is ineligible to be a candidate in the current TalkBoard election if by the end of the election period the member will have served on the TalkBoard more than three years out of the preceding four-year period.
As one of the TB members who helped draft this amendment, let me say that here is what I think it does:

- In most instances makes someone who has served two consecutive terms (4 years) on the TB take at least a year off before running again.

- In the instance of a replacement TB member, allows him or her to be elected 2 times after the appointment if he or she is appointed after the first year of the term of the person he or she is replacing. If he or she serves over one year of the term of the person he or she is replacing, he or she may only run one more time after serving out the over-one-year term before taking at least a year off.

I think this achieves those goals in a simple, straightforward way.

In the spirit of consistent, collaborative input (;)), comments on and analysis of the wording of the proposed motion (as well as the relative merit of the intention, of course!) is greatly appreciated!!!

If you truly want diversity of thought and new blood, why not say you can NEVER serve more than two full terms?

While I am a firm believer in letting voters decide term limits, if you want to mandate it... truly mandate it.... two full terms... and no more service allowed as a Talkboard member.

If you truly want diversity of thought and new blood, why not say you can NEVER serve more than two full terms?

While I am a firm believer in letting voters decide term limits, if you want to mandate it... truly mandate it.... two full terms... and no more service allowed as a Talkboard member.
^

Revise paragraph 3.B.ii.c in a techinical correction:
c. The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering more than 2/3 of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than 2 candidates in the primary vote and receive votes but none receives 2/3 of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect.

Two comments on this one. Comment 1:

Any candidate garnering more than 2/3 of the total...

I see conflicting language with that statement and this one...

...but none receives 2/3 of the total vote...

In the initial vote, what total is required to win? More than 2/3 of the total votes....OR...2/3 or more of the total votes? Big difference. In other words, if you have nine votes on the first ballot, does a candidate require six or seven votes to win and not require a second ballot?

Comment 2:

In the first ballot, what happens if there are three candidates and the result is 5-2-2? What determines the "top two" candidates for the final vote?

I do think there is a connection.... you could argue that we should not limit terms since so few people are interested and know about Talkboard to begin with.... :)

Personally, I waver on this... but probably come down on not limiting terms... why "punish" people who want to serve... the voting booth is a way to curb term limits if the members truly want it.

To me, I am more concerned when an elected member chooses to not participate fully... thus depriving their constituents of true representation. The current guidelines give no easy and "quick" way to deal with this.

Agree with all of the above logic.. that there is for and against.. but in the end, the voters will determine whether new blood is needed..

but if new rules is required to mandate new blood.. then truly change the policy..

Agree with all of the above logic.. that there is for and against.. but in the end, the voters will determine whether new blood is needed..

but if new rules is required to mandate new blood.. then truly change the policy..

Huh? :confused:

You say you're willing to let voters to decide on whether veteran TBers should contually be re-elected then you seem to reverse yourself and say if that doesn't work don't let the voters decide and impose term limits. Maybe you need to again clarify an apparent contradiction in your post.

If you truly want diversity of thought and new blood, why not say you can NEVER serve more than two full terms?

While I am a firm believer in letting voters decide term limits, if you want to mandate it... truly mandate it.... two full terms... and no more service allowed as a Talkboard member.

^

Does it mean you support term limits as such? Or just stirring the pot?

Another question is if there should be specific rules for TB pres. Maybe 1 term (2 years) max?

For the record I fully support the proposal, and taken there are enough candidates I havent seen any reason to not support this.

Another question is if there should be specific rules for TB pres. Maybe 1 term (2 years) max?

I don't think there should be but that's MHO otherwise there become too many rules. TB term limits are okay with me and two consecutive terms seems plenty of time to me.

If you truly want diversity of thought and new blood, why not say you can NEVER serve more than two full terms?

While I am a firm believer in letting voters decide term limits, if you want to mandate it... truly mandate it.... two full terms... and no more service allowed as a Talkboard member.

I'd be open to that thought. But I don't know if a majority of the TB is. Heck, the original idea was to require 2 years off, but that was negotiated down to 1 in order to make the amendment more palatable. It still may fail.

We shall see! :)

Two comments on this one. Comment 1:



I see conflicting language with that statement and this one...



In the initial vote, what total is required to win? More than 2/3 of the total votes....OR...2/3 or more of the total votes? Big difference. In other words, if you have nine votes on the first ballot, does a candidate require six or seven votes to win and not require a second ballot?

Comment 2:

In the first ballot, what happens if there are three candidates and the result is 5-2-2? What determines the "top two" candidates for the final vote?
Excellent points.

I think it makes sense to table this issue for now and focus on the term limits. We can revisit it as a stand-alone issue.

Huh? :confused:

You say you're willing to let voters to decide on whether veteran TBers should contually be re-elected then you seem to reverse yourself and say if that doesn't work don't let the voters decide and impose term limits. Maybe you need to again clarify an apparent contradiction in your post.

You've read both correct.. what I meant regarding the second statement is that the TB needs to be clear in their policy that if new blood is needed then make it clear.. otherwise leave it up to the voters..

Excellent points.

I think it makes sense to table this issue for now and focus on the term limits. We can revisit it as a stand-alone issue.

Speaking from experience, I can tell you that it is a major error to ever let something like this slide until the situation becomes a reality. At that point, personalities become involved. It is far better to settle it in advance.

Frankly, I think that in the case of a 5-2-2 split the issue is unimportant. Whoever got the 5 votes is going to win the run off. If you do want to have a run off anyhow, you can determine which of those who received 2 votes got more votes in the TB elections the last time he ran and let him run against the person who got 5.

Speaking from experience, I can tell you that it is a major error to ever let something like this slide until the situation becomes a reality. At that point, personalities become involved. It is far better to settle it in advance.

Frankly, I think that in the case of a 5-2-2 split the issue is unimportant. Whoever got the 5 votes is going to win the run off. If you do want to have a run off anyhow, you can determine which of those who received 2 votes got more votes in the TB elections the last time he ran and let him run against the person who got 5.

I think it should be fixed soon too, but as it is going to require some discussion I'd personally prefer that we focus on the issue that is contained in the OP and take this technical correction to a technical correction thread. But it's not like I am going to suspend you or anything if you want to keep talking about it here. :) ^

I'm a bit perplexed on why the 2nd part (TB Prez election) was even included with the part about term limits. They're 2 separate items. :confused:

Since this thread is about term limits, I'd rather the discussion stayed on that. Actually I would have rather the proposed term limits been started in a new thread, as someone has to wade through almost 140 posts to get to it & they have to wade through a lot of off-topic discussion. But it is what it is. Since koko's the OP, maybe he can edit his post #1 to direct people to post #128. :)

I agree w/ koko that the TB prez thing will get sorted soon, but that will be a separate discussion and hope FTers stay focused on the TB term limits discussion in this one.

Cheers.

The advantage of including it was to reduce the number of separate announcements needed. Two separate votes on internal TB procedures will feed the perception that we only twiddle our thumbs here. See if you agree with me after reading the second part of this post!


Thanks to Smaug we can correct our technical errors on the technical correction.

Revise paragraph 3.B.ii.c in a technical correction:
c. The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering more thanat least 2/3 of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than two candidates in the primary vote and receive votes but none receives 2/3 of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. If there is a tie for second place, all the tied candidates shall be included in the final vote. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect.

I believe my position is clear in the post you quote...

I am NOT for term limits for Talkboard members.

HOWEVER, if they are going to put in term limits make it a true limit.... the current proposal says that a members can sever as many terms as they want as long as they take one year off in between.... in essence, people would take one year off... and could be reelected for another four years... so could searve for 8 out of 9 years.

If you consider that stirring the pot, so be it... but I have been very clear.

Does it mean you support term limits as such? Or just stirring the pot?

Another question is if there should be specific rules for TB pres. Maybe 1 term (2 years) max?

For the record I fully support the proposal, and taken there are enough candidates I havent seen any reason to not support this.

You've read both correct.. what I meant regarding the second statement is that the TB needs to be clear in their policy that if new blood is needed then make it clear.. otherwise leave it up to the voters..

Clear in their policy? Isn't it clear enough now? Wouldn't it be clear enough if it were to enact term limit guidelines? I see it as more cut & dry, yes or no to TB term limits with my humble opinion being yes.

The advantage of including it was to reduce the number of separate announcements needed. Two separate votes on internal TB procedures will feed the perception that we only twiddle our thumbs here. See if you agree with me after reading the second part of this post!


Thanks to Smaug we can correct our technical errors on the technical correction.

Revise paragraph 3.B.ii.c in a technical correction:
c. The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering more thanat least 2/3 of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than two candidates in the primary vote and receive votes but none receives 2/3 of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. If there is a tie for second place, all the tied candidates shall be included in the final vote. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect.

"In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote."

In the rare case that 4 people ran, 1 receiving 3 votes and the three others receiving 2 votes each, no candidate would receive a majority. You might consider language that stated the "top vote getter" would win.

"In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote."

In the rare case that 4 people ran, 1 receiving 3 votes and the three others receiving 2 votes each, no candidate would receive a majority. You might consider language that stated the "top vote getter" would win.

Damn, you guys are good at this!

Revise paragraph 3.B.ii.c in a technical correction:
c. The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering more thanat least 2/3 of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than two candidates in the primary vote and receive votes but none receives 2/3 of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. If there is a tie for second place, all the tied candidates shall be included in the final vote. In the final vote, the candidate with the most votes shall be declared the winner. A tie will be resolved by a random drawing conducted by the Community DirectorPresident shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect.

I would be really disappointed if some was elected by a random drawing... and we know how the conspiracy helicopters will be circling no matter who is chosen.

Why not say "in the event of a tie, the candidate who received the highest percentage of general member votes when they were last elected".

Clear in their policy? Isn't it clear enough now? Wouldn't it be clear enough if it were to enact term limit guidelines? I see it as more cut & dry, yes or no to TB term limits with my humble opinion being yes.

If you read upthread there is discussion about getting fresh blood. The point is if TB wants it, discuss it and implement the change.. if not, drop it.

The advantage of including it was to reduce the number of separate announcements needed. Two separate votes on internal TB procedures will feed the perception that we only twiddle our thumbs here. See if you agree with me after reading the second part of this post!


Thanks to Smaug we can correct our technical errors on the technical correction.

Revise paragraph 3.B.ii.c in a technical correction:
c. The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering more thanat least 2/3 of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than two candidates in the primary vote and receive votes but none receives 2/3 of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. If there is a tie for second place, all the tied candidates shall be included in the final vote. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think anything that requires a vote by TB deserves its own thread, and I'd rather new verbiage be put in post #1, not posted in the middle of an existing thread.

But on the topic of TB Prez election (which shouldn't be put in the middle of a thread on term limits which we're seeking input on IMO), you were working from old verbiage & smaug caught what TB members did before they voted:

"On 16 Jan 2011, the TalkBoard unanimously passed:

Moved by Markie and seconded by jackal:

The TalkBoard recommends that the following amendments be made to the TalkBoard Guidelines:

Section 3, paragraph ii, sub-paragraph c be replaced with the following text :

The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering 2/3rd of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than 2 candidates in the primary vote and none receive 2/3rds of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect. "

I'm considering starting a new thread on term limits & posting in post #1 the verbiage/motion we're considering since this thread is long, and has gone sideways, first w/ mod discussions & now discussions on TB election which had been addressed earlier this year.

When asking for public comments pro/con, I'd like us to at least semi-stay on the topic. ;) :)

Cheers.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think anything that requires a vote by TB deserves its own thread, and I'd rather new verbiage be put in post #1, not posted in the middle of an existing thread.

But on the topic of TB Prez election (which shouldn't be put in the middle of a thread on term limits which we're seeking input on IMO), you were working from old verbiage & smaug caught what TB members did before they voted:

"On 16 Jan 2011, the TalkBoard unanimously passed:

Moved by Markie and seconded by jackal:

The TalkBoard recommends that the following amendments be made to the TalkBoard Guidelines:

Section 3, paragraph ii, sub-paragraph c be replaced with the following text :

The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering 2/3rd of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than 2 candidates in the primary vote and none receive 2/3rds of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect. "

I'm considering starting a new thread on term limits & posting in post #1 the verbiage/motion we're considering since this thread is long, and has gone sideways, first w/ mod discussions & now discussions on TB election which had been addressed earlier this year.

When asking for public comments pro/con, I'd like us to at least semi-stay on the topic. ;) :)

Cheers.Bolding mine: I agree completely ^. While TalkBoard is not Washington (least I hope not ;)) where too many things get buried in a bill with the hope that no-one notices, I favor the KISS method and a separate thread for each vote item is the best way to do it.

I favor the KISS method and a separate thread for each vote item is the best way to do it.

You and Sharon are correct. I will start a new thread for the technical correction. Incidentally, my post 127 was based on an outdated version of the TalkBoard Guidelines. The current version partially fixed the problem (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions/1173079-motion-passed-amend-talkboard-guidelines-winning-talkboard-president-election-min.html), but this change still needs to be made in the Guidelines posted in this forum.

I agree with SkiAdCock and goalie.. that each vote topic deserves its own thread as well.. I don't see much logic to organizing discussions any other way..

Because this thread is so long, got sidetracked with mod discussions & then TB prez election discussions, I have started a new thread re: the topic. I ask that you post your comments, pros/cons, in that thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1290400-talkboard-considering-term-limits-seeking-your-input.html

Cheers.