TalkBoard Topics - Expectations of TB members communicating with members

I recently was surprised to see someone (I won't name for reasons which will become obvious) with the title of TB member under his name. Now, I know I'm a TB wonk and I didn't know this person was on TB :o so I went to see why I didn't know - I was surprised/dismayed to learn that they hadn't posted anything on TB since February.

Now, TB members don't have to post anything on TB topics - although I personally think it is appropriate that people who are elected to represent us are also accountable to us by explaining why they voted on a particular vote. So I dropped the TB member a PM asking if there was a reason for them not involving themselves on TB topics.

No response. So we have a TB member who does not engage with the membership on TB topics and does not respond to their PMs when asked why they were not engaging with the membership. I don't think I'm asking too much in expecting some degree of communication with the members they are meant to represent - and indeed I've generally found all but this member very responsive when I occasionally drop a PM off asking something.


Am I being naive to expect people to actually take some responsibility to live up to their commitments when they stand for TB? To actually take the time to interact with us members who do care about TB here on the forum, or even just to answer the PMs we send and actually to represent us in way which is transparent to us? People put time and effort into persuading TB to support their ideas - (cf Prospero's statement that he spent 2 hours researching the information he needed to promote his idea of an IB forum - is it fair for TB to expect the members to do that, when there is no evidence of some TB members that they put any time into TB at all?

(It is possible that I am preaching to the converted here, since all of us who read this are TB wonks.... and I know we get to vote them off at the end of their term - but two years is a long time when I think we are being badly represented. )

I'm as much of a TB junkie as anyone, but could someone list the TB for me, and when their terms expire....because I've frankly lost track. :eek:

Shouldn't that list be kept up to date as a post in the 'What is the TB' sticky? @:-)

I found the list of TB memebers in the last vote...no idea when their respective terms are finished. I guess we could figure it out from the archive of the last election, although the information is not far from being at one's fingertips.

In TB defense, they all have been voting and we do not get to see how often they post in their own forum. Maybe said TB member is active on their forum and just hasn't gotten around to responding to Jenbel.

Try PMing people on the Trick It thread and see how many responses you get:p.

Possibly, but I know when I sent the PM and I know when they read the PM and I know they've been on the forum since they read the PM as well.

I would consider this forum a TB member's 'own forum' as well.

The list of TB members can be found using the 'forum leaders' function - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showgroups.php I'd have to look back in the records to know who for sure is up for election this time around.

bhatnasx (2012)
Cholula (2012)
jackal (2011)
lucky9876coins (2011)
Markie (2011)
nsx (2011)
SkiAdcock (2012)
Spiff (2012)
UA_Flyer (2011)

TalkBoard member and (year term expires).

Jenbel, are you proposing the TB guidelines be amended with some minimum participation metric?

I am disappointed as well. We had a thread on the Omni post count issue and very few on the members bothered to weigh in with their opinion. And I specifically asked them to do so - none did after my post. (this is just an example, I'm not thread-jacking).

How can we make good choices if the people elected to represent us, well, don't bother to represent us by commenting publicly? They may be participating on the private forum, but since I can't see that, in my eyes, they are not participating at all.

How can we make good choices if the people elected to represent us, well, don't bother to represent us by commenting publicly? They may be participating on the private forum, but since I can't see that, in my eyes, they are not participating at all.

That's a valid question to ask the candidates in the next (each) election.

I have two that I'm planning to ask. :)

I have two that I'm planning to ask. :)

Do you already know whether they are standing for (re)election? ;)

I'll be honest - I haven't been posting a lot recently - but I am trying to keep up with the threads and give feedback when appropriate.

Jenbel - if there are specifc members that you feel need to participate more, IMHO, feel free to call us/them out...this is an on-going gripe you have since you left TB, why not call them out in public (maybe I miss the obvious reasoning?) - at worse, you shame them into particpating or "retiring".

Personally, I do not fully see the need to participate in every discussion/argument/thought that is presented - but I do participate in the ones that I believe really impact the members that voted for me.

Mary2e - I apologize for having missed your post with the question to weigh in. I did post in the OMNI Post Count thread my thoughts. I just went back & re-read the last few pages of that thread & didn't see your question.

I'll be traveling through 8/2 with limited internet access - but can & will try to answer any questions I can.

bhatnasx (2012)
Cholula (2012)
jackal (2011)
lucky9876coins (2011)
Markie (2011)
nsx (2011)
SkiAdcock (2012)
Spiff (2012)
UA_Flyer (2011)

TalkBoard member and (year term expires).

Jenbel, are you proposing the TB guidelines be amended with some minimum participation metric?
I don't know - a minimum participation metric, would, like formalised forum continuance metrics be rather easily gamed, even if such minimum participation would be better than the wall of silence we have at the moment.

I think my concern is - and we've seen this before - is that people get elected on a wave of promises and then don't live up to those promises. On some occasions, they've fallen badly enough that the 'throw them off TB' rules can get invoked - on others, such as this appears to be they do the bare minimum necessary so the formal 'removal of TB members' rules don't apply. What comeback do the members have - except to wait for two years to refuse to vote them in again - if such an occurrence happens?

thanks for the least and the election cycle list.

bhatnasx - the reason I don't call them out is that when that has happened in the past, the forum mods have stepped in to close the threads rather quickly. So that appears to be a non-starter, and the best I can do is not name them and attempt to talk about the underlying principles of the behaviour instead. And you are one I do feel answers questions and gets involved - for me, I've always felt you were engaged with the membership, even if I dont' always agree with your viewpoints.

I'll be honest - I haven't been posting a lot recently - but I am trying to keep up with the threads and give feedback when appropriate.

Jenbel - if there are specifc members that you feel need to participate more, IMHO, feel free to call us/them out...this is an on-going gripe you have since you left TB, why not call them out in public (maybe I miss the obvious reasoning?) - at worse, you shame them into particpating or "retiring".

Personally, I do not fully see the need to participate in every discussion/argument/thought that is presented - but I do participate in the ones that I believe really impact the members that voted for me.

Mary2e - I apologize for having missed your post with the question to weigh in. I did post in the OMNI Post Count thread my thoughts. I just went back & re-read the last few pages of that thread & didn't see your question.

I'll be traveling through 8/2 with limited internet access - but can & will try to answer any questions I can.You have absolutely nothing to apologize for. You are one of the more responsive members. You did weigh in on that thread.

Here's the link to the post with the list of questions

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16570973-post115.html

Got it - thanks for the responses, Jenbel & Mary2e.

Mary2e, I did see that post and I'm literally getting ready to check out of my hotel & head to the airport and will be without solid internet access until Monday - at which point, I will try to answer in that thread. Hopefully, without taking this thread OT, as a TB member who generally doesn't want the post counts in OMNI to count (again, not for this thread), I haven't taken up the cause for a solution. As you are specifically asking, I will forumlate a better response for you in the near future (just not in the next few days - got a wedding in SAN that I'm flying out for in a few hours...and I'm the "minister" so I've got a lot to do with it this weekend).

Thanks for understanding.

Please don't worry about it and enjoy the wedding & weekend.

Can't speak for other TB members, but I post regularly in both the public & private TB forums. When I vote I'm always willing to explain why I've voted the way I did, which I've usually done so in the lead-up discussions in both forums, or after if requested. Going from memory (and it's just that) I think most of the TB members post in the public TB forums. Some more than others.

Cheers.

Personally, I do not fully see the need to participate in every discussion/argument/thought that is presented - but I do participate in the ones that I believe really impact the members that voted for me.

Do TB members get supplied with a list showing which FTers voted for them?

Can't speak for other TB members, but I post regularly in both the public & private TB forums. When I vote I'm always willing to explain why I've voted the way I did, which I've usually done so in the lead-up discussions in both forums, or after if requested. Going from memory (and it's just that) I think most of the TB members post in the public TB forums. Some more than others.

Cheers.You certainly do - you're very open ^

I certainly never got a list of people who voted for me.

Do TB members get supplied with a list showing which FTers voted for them?

Nope. It's like any election. Private ballots.

Cheers.

These days, with Facebook, Twitter, and folks Blogging, people are spending more time away from Flyertalk than ever before. I'm guessing that some TB members may be 'busy' with other things. :rolleyes:

If so, they should resign. @:-)

TB needs to make some adjustments to insure its members are 'working'.

dh

I attempt to post as often as I can especially on topics that are of interest or significance. I do read the forum every day.

I am proposing to make the decision about whether I will be re-standing for TB in the next week, with an announcement around the 1st of August. A significant reason that I am considering not standing has been the failure of the current TB to agree to a number of issues over which I felt strongly. As has been said before the 'no change' brigade pretty much vetos reform of TB and I am not sure the frustration that engenders in me is worth it any longer.

I attempt to post as often as I can especially on topics that are of interest or significance. I do read the forum every day.

I am proposing to make the decision about whether I will be re-standing for TB in the next week, with an announcement around the 1st of August. A significant reason that I am considering not standing has been the failure of the current TB to agree to a number of issues over which I felt strongly. As has been said before the 'no change' brigade pretty much vetos reform of TB and I am not sure the frustration that engenders in me is worth it any longer.

Lol, been there, done that!

Unfortunately the 'no change' brigade is quite tenacious! But even the mightiest mountain can be laid low by the constant trickle of drops of water. ^

Nope.

That seems to answer it then. Thanks.

TB needs to make some adjustments to insure its members are 'working'.

dh

I nominate you to dish out zetzes in the tucheses, as appropriate.

I nominate you to dish out zetzes in the tucheses, as appropriate.LMAO :D

I attempt to post as often as I can especially on topics that are of interest or significance. I do read the forum every day.

I am proposing to make the decision about whether I will be re-standing for TB in the next week, with an announcement around the 1st of August. A significant reason that I am considering not standing has been the failure of the current TB to agree to a number of issues over which I felt strongly. As has been said before the 'no change' brigade pretty much vetos reform of TB and I am not sure the frustration that engenders in me is worth it any longer.

Reminds me of the old days when I was on the first TB. One member brought everyone to their knees. Kept me up at night. I even took a one week vacation from FT to cool off.

Markie, thanks for your contributions to FT. ^

TB members have the right to explain every single vote they make and, conversely, never to post on this forum at all.

We, as voters, have the right to take their posting history here into consideration should they decide to run for another term.

(Personally, if given the choice between Member A, who generally votes against my wishes but explains his votes and Member B, who generally votes the way I would but does not post, I would go with Member B.)

If that's the approach they are going to take (never posting at all in the forum and not responding to PMs from those they represent) they should at least be honest about it during the election debates, and not waffle on about how good they are at communicating :rolleyes: :(

While hypocrisy may be telling and considered in a vote, it's to be said that the following post represents my opinion in full on this matter:

TB members have the right to explain every single vote they make and, conversely, never to post on this forum at all.

We, as voters, have the right to take their posting history here into consideration should they decide to run for another term.

(Personally, if given the choice between Member A, who generally votes against my wishes but explains his votes and Member B, who generally votes the way I would but does not post, I would go with Member B.)

Do TB members get supplied with a list showing which FTers voted for them?

My comment was poorly phrased.

What I meant was that I take into consideration the perspectives of those that take the time to participate in the TB forum. I also take into consideration what I believe to be view point for "the greater good of the FlyerTalk Community" - I assume, maybe incorrectly, that I'm on my third term on TB because I am representative the members.

My comment was poorly phrased.

What I meant was that I take into consideration the perspectives of those that take the time to participate in the TB forum. I also take into consideration what I believe to be view point for "the greater good of the FlyerTalk Community" - I assume, maybe incorrectly, that I'm on my third term on TB because I am representative the members.

Thanks for the explanation.

FWIW or not, I'm pretty confident that you'll have my vote again if you choose to run.

Jenbel's concern was raised previously - by me. I knew the topic seemed familiar. This was before I was a TB member, but as anyone knows who follows TB, I post regularly.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1086336-adjusting-bylaws-require-tb-members-actually-have-post-tb-threads.html

Cheers.

I am disappointed as well. We had a thread on the Omni post count issue and very few on the members bothered to weigh in with their opinion. And I specifically asked them to do so - none did after my post. (this is just an example, I'm not thread-jacking).

How can we make good choices if the people elected to represent us, well, don't bother to represent us by commenting publicly? They may be participating on the private forum, but since I can't see that, in my eyes, they are not participating at all.
Even if I don't like their opinion, I'd prefer to read their opinion prior to an issue going to a vote, rather than only finding out afterwards that they voted for or against a motion.
I'll be honest - I haven't been posting a lot recently - but I am trying to keep up with the threads and give feedback when appropriate.

Jenbel - if there are specifc members that you feel need to participate more, IMHO, feel free to call us/them out...this is an on-going gripe you have since you left TB, why not call them out in public (maybe I miss the obvious reasoning?) - at worse, you shame them into particpating or "retiring".

Personally, I do not fully see the need to participate in every discussion/argument/thought that is presented - but I do participate in the ones that I believe really impact the members that voted for me.

Mary2e - I apologize for having missed your post with the question to weigh in. I did post in the OMNI Post Count thread my thoughts. I just went back & re-read the last few pages of that thread & didn't see your question.

I'll be traveling through 8/2 with limited internet access - but can & will try to answer any questions I can.
Perhaps, rather than immediately calling out those who seem to not be participating, sending a PM as Jenbel did should work. If the TB member doesn't reply to the PM within a reasonable amount of time, then I think the TB member should be called out.

As a general FT member, I don't expect that members of TB read and respond to PM's within a day, but within a week seems reasonable, unless they've previously posted that they'll be without internet access.

Perhaps a sticky in this forum would be rather helpful? Something along the lines of "TB availability" where if a TB member is going to be without internet access or isn't going to have the time to read and post on FT and answer PM's for a period of time, that TB member could post, "I'll be unavailable until XYZ date." That way, people know that the person isn't just being unresponsible, but is effectively, out of reach for a bit.

Life happens--not everyone will be able to access FT and reply to PM's or threads daily. However, when in a role like those on TB, a simple, "I'll be with only internet access until 8/2" goes a long way to telling your constituency that you take their concerns seriously, but just are not able to respond in a timely manner.
TB members have the right to explain every single vote they make and, conversely, never to post on this forum at all.

We, as voters, have the right to take their posting history here into consideration should they decide to run for another term.

(Personally, if given the choice between Member A, who generally votes against my wishes but explains his votes and Member B, who generally votes the way I would but does not post, I would go with Member B.)
I'd like to see TB members explain their votes for each motion.

I'd like to see TB members explain their votes for each motion.

That's a reasonable request. Maybe we should add this to the TalkBoard guidelines. If we had a Best Practices document it would definitely belong there. So perhaps the first step should be to create that document.

That's a reasonable request. Maybe we should add this to the TalkBoard guidelines. If we had a Best Practices document it would definitely belong there. So perhaps the first step should be to create that document.

No offense, but that would be a hugh waste of time over a somewhat (IMHO) petty point. I would suggest adding wording to the guidelines addressing this matter. Keep it simple.

Is there a date as to when the 2011 elections will be held?

Is there a date as to when the 2011 elections will be held?

The call for candidates usually begins in October.

If that's the approach they are going to take (never posting at all in the forum and not responding to PMs from those they represent) they should at least be honest about it during the election debates, and not waffle on about how good they are at communicating :rolleyes: :(

Totally agree! As I understand it, TB is elected to represent the membership at-large. If those elected can't take the time to post periodically and explain their votes, how are they serving the membership? Step aside and let someone else in the door who will provide adequate representation/explanation. Don't just get elected for the title. Do something!

Totally agree! As I understand it, TB is elected to represent the membership at-large. If those elected can't take the time to post periodically and explain their votes, how are they serving the membership? Step aside and let someone else in the door who will provide adequate representation/explanation. Don't just get elected for the title. Do something!

You know, it never occurred to me to pad my CV with my past TB service. But it appears to be de rigeur these days. :eek:

Here's what lucky9876coins posted in the 2009 election debate. He seems to be sticking to his campaign promise not to post publicly here as he has only participated in 6 threads this year (compare that, for example, to SkiAdcock at 46, Spiff at 42 and Cholula at 26--heavy posters here I often interface with). These are actual threads and not post counts across the forum. I'm on the way out right now and haven't researched more than these members.

Here's what lucky9876coins posted in 2009:

My approach to feedback is similar to gleff’s. I don’t always have a strong opinion about a subject to start with, which is why the TalkBoard Topics forum is crucial. I don’t think there’s a single post I haven’t read in the TalkBoard Topics forum in the past two years, even if I didn’t make an actual post in a thread. The TalkBoard Topics forum is a great place to ask questions and try to understand what the majority is thinking, based both on the amount of passion regarding the subject along with the sheer number of people voicing their opinions. At the same time, I typically don’t engage in “debate” in the public forum, because frankly I’m not trying to convince members of my opinion, but instead am trying to represent their opinions. I think the function of the TalkBoard is to represent the best interests of the members, and often the most practical way to do that is to just observe.

Seems like he's delivering what he promised.

The only problem with that is when we have no idea what our representative's position is initially. If the TB member supports my viewpoint, then I do not need to lobby (either publicly or privately). If they do not, I may post more info or reach out privately.

Too many times we have no idea where a TB member stands on an issue until they vote.

And, if past personal experiences as a Talkboard member is any indication, many TB members will vote on a motion as soon as it is posted. They do not want to risk missing a vote later... or they have already formed their personal position. Often not much time to "lobby" our members.

I don't think you can regulate the quantity of participation here. Could it be the intimidation factor and having to take questions and defend your position? Short of a recall (is there a procedure in place for that?) or waiting until the next election, I think we're stuck with the inactive Talk Board member(s).

I don't think you can regulate the quantity of participation here. Could it be the intimidation factor and having to take questions and defend your position? Short of a recall (is there a procedure in place for that?) or waiting until the next election, I think we're stuck with the inactive Talk Board member(s).

There is no procedure in place for a recall.

Short of a recall (is there a procedure in place for that?) or waiting until the next election, I think we're stuck with the inactive Talk Board member(s).

As Spiff notes, there is no recall procedure in place regarding TB members.

The only grounds for censure/removal are:

vii. Grounds for censure or removal of a TalkBoard member:

a. Fails to participate in three consecutive discussions on pending motions without prior notice, where prior notice constitutes a post posted in the thread kept for that purpose in the private TalkBoard forum
b. Misses three consecutive calls to vote without prior notice where prior notice constitutes a post posted in the thread kept for that purpose in the private TalkBoard forum
c. Has been permanently removed from the rolls of active, registered members of the FlyerTalk community
d. Demonstrates by his/her actions that he/she is not able to actively participate in the TalkBoard duties
e. Acts in willful and gross serious, repeated violation of the FlyerTalk member Terms of Service (TOS)
f. Acts in willful and gross serious, repeated violation of these guidelines
g. Abuses the censure and removal process

Point "d" comes closest to what is being discussed here but since communicating with members is not specifically a duty it most likely doesn't apply,

If enough folks think that active, timely and regular communication (not sure exactly how you measure that) with members is critical, those folks are certainly welcome to petition the TalkBoard to add that requirement to the TalkBoard Guidelines.

Or as has been suggested upthread, make sure this one of the criteria used for who you vote for in upcoming elections.

I finally have some time this morning in Shanghai to finish researching the threads in this forum that Talk Board members have participated in this year. Here's the total number of threads (not posts) that each member has posted something in since January 1.

46 SkiAdcock
42 Spiff
42 nsx
40 bhatnasx
30 markie
29 jackal
26 cholula
6 lucky9876coins
1 UA_Flyer

I looked in the 2010 election thread and can't find any statements from UA_Flyer that he intended to better communicate with the members, a key issue I took into account when I voted. He only posted in 3 of the 15 election questions, so I really don't know what his view is on not posting on the public Talk Board forum as it's not addressed there. The one Talk Board thread he posted on was to accept the appointment on February 4 and he has not appeared since.

30 markie


tom911, thanks for that. I hope to get better at posting - of course quantity is not a measure of quality. ;)

I think that's actually a pretty decent contribution to this forum.

1 UA_Flyer

I looked in the 2010 election thread and can't find any statements from UA_Flyer that he intended to better communicate with the members, a key issue I took into account when I voted. He only posted in 3 of the 15 election questions, so I really don't know what his view is on not posting on the public Talk Board forum as it's not addressed there. The one Talk Board thread he posted on was to accept the appointment on February 4 and he has not appeared since.

That record is disappointing to this member. While I don't favor a process whereby we force TBers to engage I would hope for a little more interaction than this.

While I don't favor a process whereby we force TBers to engage I would hope for a little more interaction than this.Agreed. And as mentioned earlier, this is an excellent question for someone to ask those running for the next TB.

Which, of course, raises the question: What if you post in the election thread that you're going to interact with members on this forum on a regular basis, and then don't post a single line, what are the consequences? It would appear the answer is "none".

Well, assuming enough "voters" agree that providing thoughts/feedback within the various Talkboard threads is a requirement, then that person probably won't get re-elected.

I guess the real question is what guarantees do we have that a TB member must adhere to any statements made during the election question period? Short of an action that breaks an actual TB/FT rule, I'm not sure there really any immediate actions that could be mandated (short of possibly someone publicly stating the perceived transgration.) But beyond "calling the TB member out", there really isn't much that can be done until their current term is up.

I wonder if the level of "participation" in this public forum is indicitive of the level of participation in the private TB forum?

I know when I was on TB, there were a few members that almost never posted their thoughts...and only showed up to vote. It is very difficult to try and convince or have a "debate" when you do not know the starting position of another member.

I almost wish that all debates had to happen in the public forum... including votes. That would certainly lead to transparency... :)

I'll channel my inner kokonutz and say - "open the private TB forum for read-only access to non-TB members" :D

I'll channel my inner kokonutz and say - "open the private TB forum for read-only access to non-TB members" :D

The more you think about it, the more sense it makes, right!??!?! ^^^^^^^^^^^

The more you think about it, the more sense it makes, right!??!?! ^^^^^^^^^^^

I'll go out on a limb & disagree.

I do think that TB members should, at minimum, participate in discussions in the private TB forum, and hopefully in the public TB forum as well. There is some criteria re: private forum participation, btw, as you know.

However, the private TB forum is so the TB members can have discussions amongst themselves, whether on public motions or other issues that might crop up for discussion/consideration that might or might not even make it to the public stage. It's also so they can speak freely to each other & not have a conversation with a gazillion others simultaneously (which granted, they can in the public forum).

If there's read-only in private TB that's open to all of FT, then the regular FT members can read the private & then say subsequently in the public forums, well you said this in the private forum & then the TB members need to respond to those comments & not have the debates/discussions amongst the 9 members only, so basically at that point you're turning the private TB forum into a public one.

So on this one I have to disagree w/ you koko.

Cheers.

I'll go out on a limb & disagree.

I do think that TB members should, at minimum, participate in discussions in the private TB forum, and hopefully in the public TB forum as well. There is some criteria re: private forum participation, btw, as you know.

However, the private TB forum is so the TB members can have discussions amongst themselves, whether on public motions or other issues that might crop up for discussion/consideration that might or might not even make it to the public stage. It's also so they can speak freely to each other & not have a conversation with a gazillion others simultaneously (which granted, they can in the public forum).

If there's read-only in private TB that's open to all of FT, then the regular FT members can read the private & then say subsequently in the public forums, well you said this in the private forum & then the TB members need to respond to those comments & not have the debates/discussions amongst the 9 members only, so basically at that point you're turning the private TB forum into a public one.

So on this one I have to disagree w/ you koko.

Cheers.
I understand your opinion, but it would be nice if regular FT members could know that all TB members were participating in private debates/discussions, and were just absent from public debate/discussion. That would show that they were active, more than just to vote.

I understand your opinion, but it would be nice if regular FT members could know that all TB members were participating in private debates/discussions, and were just absent from public debate/discussion. That would show that they were active, more than just to vote.

It's not my (or any other AFAIK) TB member's place to 'report' publicly if a TB member is participating in the private forum. Participation (or not) is handled in the private forum. Again, opening up the private forum to review, even on a read-only basis, in effect makes it a public forum.

Please note in my post above & this one I am not speaking on behalf of the TB; just my own input/opinion.

Cheers.

If someone has an issue with a TB member's participation, or lack thereof, why not bring it up with the Community Director, SanDiego1k - essentially, the TB serves at the discretion of the Community Director....

I've served on TalkBoard for a number of years and I can say without divulging any confidences that there are usually a few members who do not participate actively either privately or publicly.

I do remember at least one TB a few years ago where all 9 members were actively engaged but that's a rarity IMO.

Life sometimes gets in the way of active TB participation and/or some folks are just not as verbose as others. There are FT'ers who have been active members for a decade or longer who have "only" 500 posts and others who have 25,000 or more posts. That's just a fact of life on an IBB in my opinion.

Even in this public TB forum there are only a very, very small handful of the hundreds of thousands of FT members who weigh-in on the topics.

So, as with the private forum, we can only consider the viewpoints of those who bother to make their thoughts known. Not much we can do to force folks to post if they don't care to do so.

Life sometimes gets in the way of active TB participation

Quite true, though in this case said member isn't anywhere near "active" participation at least as it involves posting in this public TB forum. I'd settle for "infrequent" or "occasional" rather than "virtually no" public TB participation as seems to be the case.

Just MHO and YMMV.

Indeed.

Ignoring PMs sent to them from the members they are supposed to represent gets a big :td: in my book too. I know you can get a kind of team mentality on TB, but trying to make excuses for someone who frankly isn't talking to those he represents doesn't look that good.

Remember all that stuff about TB being self policing? You have to be able to admit there is a problem to do that ;)

I'll channel my inner kokonutz and say - "open the private TB forum for read-only access to non-TB members" :D

Although I see the value that would provide interested members, IMHO that value is outweighed by the risk of reduced willingness of TB members to post controversial thoughts or unconventional or half-baked ideas. A group can create something quite extraordinary from a half-baked idea, but this would be much less likely to happen in a public forum.

In summary, an open forum would close down discussion. The current system of one open forum and one closed forum is ideal, IMHO. FWIW, this public forum is more active than the private one. Most of the ideas the TalkBoard considers originate here. Good ideas are picked up and posted in the private forum very quickly in case any TB members missed them.

I'm certainly not trying to make excuses for those members who don't communicate. In fact, I have never met nor conversed in any manner with the folks I think are being referred to.

I'm just thinking out loud as to why somebody would bust their butt to get on TB only to then clam up and rarely be heard from again.

There's some dynamic involved that I'm trying to discern here.

I'm certainly not trying to make excuses for those members who don't communicate. In fact, I have never met nor conversed in any manner with the folks I think are being referred to.

I'm just thinking out loud as to why somebody would bust their butt to get on TB only to then clam up and rarely be heard from again.

There's some dynamic involved that I'm trying to discern here.

Enthusiasm and free time to indulge it can have their ups and downs. Only retired people are likely to be able to engage at top speed all the time. That's why we tell others when we are preoccupied and they offer to carry the load for us. It's rarely more than a few weeks of consecutive low-availability time for any TB member. This is the same as for moderators' availability in my experience.

Five months, one post, a bunch of Yes votes (I'm left wondering if the first option was 'no', would they have voted 'no' instead) and no response to PMs from concerned members.

Or is this one of those rare events happening when it is months and months on end?

(I take the general point that for the rest of you stuff comes and goes - apart from Cholula, he's just on never-ending holiday :D and I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with one post in five months... as you might have guessed from this thread!)

...I'm just thinking out loud as to why somebody would bust their butt to get on TB only to then clam up and rarely be heard from again.

There's some dynamic involved that I'm trying to discern here.

A shining title? Fame? Ego? Vanity? Winning a popularity contest? Your guess is as good as mine.

Since TBers don't get paid by IB, I can't guess money. :D

I'm still listening to the points of view by everyone in this thread, but I do want to say that I agree and support nsx's statement below. I have posted several half-baked ideas in the private forum that I wished for some comment and a fresh set of eyes before setting them out for the public tearing-apart process. Some made it out, some are tabled, and some were disposed of; all were posted informally, and I would not have posted them had it been publicly viewable.

One could argue that such informal discussion could be handled by PM, but we all know that FT's PM system is not the easiest to use, especially in complicated back-and-forth discussion with several people.

I'm not necessarily against (although nor am I for, at this point, anyway) some form of open-discussion bylaws that restrict what can be discussed behind closed doors, but there definitely needs to be a forum-type environment for at least informal discussion, if only as a practical matter given the limitations of the current software.

Although I see the value that would provide interested members, IMHO that value is outweighed by the risk of reduced willingness of TB members to post controversial thoughts or unconventional or half-baked ideas. A group can create something quite extraordinary from a half-baked idea, but this would be much less likely to happen in a public forum.

In summary, an open forum would close down discussion. The current system of one open forum and one closed forum is ideal, IMHO. FWIW, this public forum is more active than the private one. Most of the ideas the TalkBoard considers originate here. Good ideas are picked up and posted in the private forum very quickly in case any TB members missed them.

Dumb, maybe technical question: the OP has repeated their displeasure that the TB member in question (BTW, why all dancing around the member's handle?) didn't respond to PMs - if that person had the OP on their ignore list would they still receive the PM?

It seems many people here are suggesting TB members should post more and someone even suggested adding a requirement or best practices. (I actually agree with dovster). But based on the OP's question, should that scope be widened to include responding to every PM they receive? just some? How do you regulate that? If I PM'd jackal and told him he's an idiot (BTW, my friend is not) should he be required to respond? If I PM'd SkiAdcock a complicated question I know she'd take the time to reply with a detailed response, but perhaps other TB members don't have the time or want to think about an issue?

Dumb, maybe technical question: the OP has repeated their displeasure that the TB member in question (BTW, why all dancing around the member's handle?) didn't respond to PMs - if that person had the OP on their ignore list would they still receive the PM?

It seems many people here are suggesting TB members should post more and someone even suggested adding a requirement or best practices. (I actually agree with dovster). But based on the OP's question, should that scope be widened to include responding to every PM they receive? just some? How do you regulate that? If I PM'd jackal and told him he's an idiot (BTW, my friend is not) should he be required to respond? If I PM'd SkiAdcock a complicated question I know she'd take the time to reply with a detailed response, but perhaps other TB members don't have the time or want to think about an issue?

No one has to respond to or even accept PM. If someone doesn't want to respond to you, then that lack of response says volumes. Move on.

If I PM'd jackal and told him he's an idiot

I send him a similar PM several times a week and I usually get an answer.

But not one I can repeat here. :)

I send him a similar PM several times a week and I usually get an answer.

But not one I can repeat here. :)

:D Does that mean everyone can feel free to do that and we can all compare responses? :D

I PM'd jackal and told him he's an idiot

And I PM'd you back and said you were--oh:

(BTW, my friend is not)

Thanks for the disclaimer. Glad I stopped at that Starbucks in Yakima for you...or else I might really be on your bad side! :D