In my one year term w/ TB, I’ve read posts by FTers that say TB is resistant to change, wants to keep things the way they are, are hidebound, etc.
First, let me state I don’t believe that. I believe that every person who runs and/or is elected to TB does so because they believe in FT, think they can contribute to it more than just posting in forums &/or want to give back in an additional capacity, and wants what is best for FT.
Sometimes things get passed, sometimes they don’t, and sometimes there’s not enough interest by either regular FTers or TB members to bring something to a motion/vote.
But it did start me thinking about motions passed & failed, so I did a quick compilation/perusal of this year’s votes (below) & prior years’ votes (2010-2006) (below in links), and I discovered that more motions get passed than failed – and that’s true from 2006 through 2011. And some that didn’t pass in the past did in subsequent years.
2011 Votes to Date:
10/17/11: Motion Passed: SIXT Car Rental forum
Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, jackal, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, SkiAdcock, Spiff, UA_Flyer
09/20/11: Motion Passed: Create LAN LANPASS Forum
Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, jackal, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, SkiAdcock, Spiff, UA_Flyer
08/08/11: Motion Failed: Restore Post Count Credit for Omni
Voting yes: Cholula, jackal, SkiAdcock, UA_Flyer
Voting no: bhatnasx, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Spiff
08/08/11: Motion Passed: Amend TalkBoard Guidelines on Requirements for Motions to Pass Voting yes: Cholula, jackal, lucky9876coins, nsx, SkiAdcock, Spiff, UA_Flyer
Voting no: bhatnasx, Markie
04/19/11: Motion Passed: Rename Radisson goldpoints plus to Club Carlson
Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, jackal, lucky9876coins, nsx, SkiAdcock, Spiff, UA_Flyer
03/13/11: Motion Passed: Filling Vacancies of Elected TalkBoard
Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, jackal, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, SkiAdcock, Spiff, UA_Flyer
03/09/11: Motion Passed: Restrict Access to OMNI and OMNI/PR
Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, jackal, lucky9876coins, nsx, SkiAdcock, Spiff, UA_Flyer
Voting no: Markie
02/23/11: nsx elected TalkBoard Vice-President/Secretary for remainder of the 2010-2011 TB term nsx was elected TalkBoard Vice-President/Secretary by a 5-4 margin over SkiAdcock, filling the seat left open when Spiff became President.
So overall I think past & current TB members have done a good job, and it’s my expectation that future TB members will as well.
And - I totally respect all past & current TB members who gave/are giving of their time, thought, consideration, to help make FT a better BB. I might not have agreed with them all the time, nor them with me, but I think that all of us, whether TB or FTers, have FT's best interests at heart. And it's a pretty good bulletin board for one's travels needs and questions, and it has an excellent community. 'Nuf said.
Cheers.
RichMSN
Nov 8, 11, 12:51 pm
In my one year term w/ TB, I’ve read posts by FTers that say TB is resistant to change, wants to keep things the way they are, are hidebound, etc.
First, let me state I don’t believe that. I believe that every person who runs and/or is elected to TB does so because they believe in FT, think they can contribute to it more than just posting in forums &/or want to give back in an additional capacity, and wants what is best for FT.
Sometimes things get passed, sometimes they don’t, and sometimes there’s not enough interest by either regular FTers or TB members to bring something to a motion/vote.
(snip!)
Cheers.
Passing a motion, to me, is not a relevant measure of the success of TalkBoard. It's a measure that can be (and probably has been) manipulated by TalkBoard Members who would rather be seen as not voting down a motion rather than making a public stand on a topic.
To me, this problem goes away if there's more transparency behind the scenes. Why should TalkBoard be able to discuss and debate a topic in private just to pre-determine that there aren't enough votes to pass, therefore neither the debate or a motion ever makes the light of day?
kipper
Nov 8, 11, 1:04 pm
Passing a motion, to me, is not a relevant measure of the success of TalkBoard. It's a measure that can be (and probably has been) manipulated by TalkBoard Members who would rather be seen as not voting down a motion rather than making a public stand on a topic.
To me, this problem goes away if there's more transparency behind the scenes. Why should TalkBoard be able to discuss and debate a topic in private just to pre-determine that there aren't enough votes to pass, therefore neither the debate or a motion ever makes the light of day?
I've mentioned that as well, in the SIXT Car Rental forum motion thread, in response to Carol's comment. The bolding in my post is just to highlight.
Dov, Talkboard members deserve more respect. They decide what to support based on their own individual judgment. I've suggested a couple things to Talkboard that have not made it as far as a vote. Thus, you've never seen those items here for public discussion. However, I do have a right to ask them to consider a forum just as any member can. I made it clear to those who asked me that they should vote their own mind and not rubber stamp it because I was the one who requested it. I believe that is what they did here. And for the items where they did not move forward, I've respected their position and not gone around them.
The creation of this forum doesn't really affect me, but I do have a few thoughts on your comment.
I would like to see Talkboard giving FT membership at large (who they are supposed to represent) time to comment on things, to see if perhaps the membership would like to see a vote on said idea. If one person suggests it, usually, at least a few others feel strongly about it, one way or the other. I'd love to at least see a thread in the public TalkBoard forum for discussion on all suggestions and such.
If there is the appearance of a hint of favoritism, which I think is what Dov was suggesting there might be in this case, I've learned that it's better to err on the side of caution. Perhaps, rather than you (Carol) making suggestions to TalkBoard, it might be best if suggestions you have for TalkBoard were sent to another member, and that member was asked to relay them to TalkBoard under the guise of it being their suggestion. This would demonstrate that something was not approved by TalkBoard simply because the Community Director requested it, but that all members' suggestions were valued and met with the same respect and consideration.
This too seems reasonable as far as recommendations and discussions on non-specific moderator action.
kokonutz
Nov 8, 11, 1:50 pm
Sharon, I believe your stats prove just how DYSfunctional the TB has become.
Motions are not even MADE unless and until there is consensus to pass them except in rare instances.
That's not how it should work, because that:
1) keeps posters from knowing how TB members would vote on issues where consensus is not preordained, and
2) keeps posters from being able to hold TB member accountable for voting against things that they might support, or voting for things they might oppose.
So posters are left with a happy-la-la-la impression that the TB always passes things. But that leaves out the other half of the story: all the issues that are never even formally considered because they might not pass.
And since TB members are, imho, doing a worse and worse job of saying how they feel about non-motioned issues in the public TB forum, posters never even know how a TB member feels about an issue that is not brought to motion.
When I was on the TB, I forced votes on issues I thought would probably fail. Because posters deserve to know where their TB members stand on ALL issues, not just on ones where passage is already a done deal.
As RichMSN says, the current consensus-based approach has created lots of passed motions but dampened transparency considerably. In the end, that a terrible trade-off, imho.
bhatnasx
Nov 8, 11, 3:44 pm
As RichMSN says, the current consensus-based approach has created lots of passed motions but dampened transparency considerably. In the end, that a terrible trade-off, imho.
FWIW, I agree with you to an extent. To give you some insight as to why I think this happened (and I don't know that I agree with the idea of reaching consensus before moving forward all the time) is because there were, in the past, some pretty poorly worded motions that were not completely thought all the way through before some TB members made them & seconded them so quickly. This is part of the reason why there is now the 48 hour minimum discussion time requirement between a subject being brought up & a motion being made and seconded.
These poorly worded motions were often times more related to user experience than forum creation - but they were there. After these things happened & the some TB members made some embarrassing motions & seconds that werent' necessarily thought out in full - the concept of building consensus behind the scenes came into play...
That said, there are still folks (myself included) who vote No on something when we feel strongly enough about it.
SkiAdcock
Nov 8, 11, 6:59 pm
I'm only on for a few minutes, but a few comments.
First there have been comments that TB doesn't approve things, is hidebound, etc, etc, so yes if you're going to make the argument that stuff doesn't get approved & it's an example of how TB is hidebound, then you have to acknowledge maybe not so hidebound after all given the votes during the last 6 years. You can't have it both ways.
I went back during the last year & read the various threads brought up for discussion. There weren't that many not brought up for a vote, and on the ones that weren't even regular FTers couldn't agree on stuff. Could & should some of the items be brought up again? Yes. Should all of them be brought up again? Nah. Some didn't even get much input from FTers themselves.
TB seems to pass more than reject motions - and more importantly, it has done so over several years with dif TB members, not just the same ones.
So quite frankly I don't get the dsyfunctional comments because if you all believe that, then TB has been dsyfunctional from the very beginning of its existance.
This also gets back to TB members get their arse kicked if they do something & their arse kicked if they don't.
For example, if they do a motion before too much public discussion (as kipper & rich mention with sixt) - they get their arse kicked. If they wait too long, they get their arse kicked (as w/ some right now w/ A3).
And I don't buy totally that over the years or even now that motions only get made if it's going to be approved. We've had enough failed ones to prove that isn't true. And speaking for myself I vote on whether I think something is worthwhile/should be considered/approved, even if I think it might not pass. I have never once thought I'm voting on this because we're all a big kumbaya group. And I've been on the losing side of some motions, so it's not like something is guaranteed.
And I think it's total BS that because stuff is discussed in private TB that means something is wrong w/ the process. It allows TB to hash out things, go back/forth on their own, do their own homework. Private TB is not a everything gets approved & how do we look good for the members forum, and quite frankly it's insulting to suggest otherwise. It's especially insulting from someone who served before.
I definitely don't get koko's comment that he pushed stuff through that he thought would fail given most stuff passed during his prior term, and he voted yes on everything (when he didn't abstain). Pot/kettle? But this isn't about individuals.
Is TB perfect? No. Will it ever be perfect? No. Do TB members overall want what's best for FT? Yes, I believe so. And I continue to give respect to both past & present TB members who donated their time, expertise, and judgment to help make FT a better place, just as I will to future TB members.
PS - You're welcome. Not everyone would compile statistics for 6 years so that FTers could see 'at a glance' votes, topics, etc. ;)
Cheers.
RichMSN
Nov 8, 11, 7:20 pm
I'm only on for a few minutes, but a few comments.
First there have been comments that TB doesn't approve things, is hidebound, etc, etc, so yes if you're going to make the argument that stuff doesn't get approved & it's an example of how TB is hidebound, then you have to acknowledge maybe not so hidebound after all given the votes during the last 6 years. You can't have it both ways.
I went back during the last year & read the various threads brought up for discussion. There weren't that many not brought up for a vote, and on the ones that weren't even regular FTers couldn't agree on stuff. Could & should some of the items be brought up again? Yes. Should all of them be brought up again? Nah. Some didn't even get much input from FTers themselves.
TB seems to pass more than reject motions - and more importantly, it has done so over several years with dif TB members, not just the same ones.
So quite frankly I don't get the dsyfunctional comments because if you all believe that, then TB has been dsyfunctional from the very beginning of its existance.
This also gets back to TB members get their arse kicked if they do something & their arse kicked if they don't.
For example, if they do a motion before too much public discussion (as kipper & rich mention with sixt) - they get their arse kicked. If they wait too long, they get their arse kicked (as w/ some right now w/ A3).
And I don't buy totally that over the years or even now that motions only get made if it's going to be approved. We've had enough failed ones to prove that isn't true. And speaking for myself I vote on whether I think something is worthwhile/should be considered/approved, even if I think it might not pass. I have never once thought I'm voting on this because we're all a big kumbaya group. And I've been on the losing side of some motions, so it's not like something is guaranteed.
And I think it's total BS that because stuff is discussed in private TB that means something is wrong w/ the process. It allows TB to hash out things, go back/forth on their own, do their own homework. Private TB is not a everything gets approved & how do we look good for the members forum, and quite frankly it's insulting to suggest otherwise. It's especially insulting from someone who served before.
I definitely don't get koko's comment that he pushed stuff through that he thought would fail given most stuff passed during his prior term, and he voted yes on everything (when he didn't abstain). Pot/kettle? But this isn't about individuals.
Is TB perfect? No. Will it ever be perfect? No. Do TB members overall want what's best for FT? Yes, I believe so. And I continue to give respect to both past & present TB members who donated their time, expertise, and judgment to help make FT a better place, just as I will to future TB members.
PS - You're welcome. Not everyone would compile statistics for 6 years so that FTers could see 'at a glance' votes, topics, etc. ;)
Cheers.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Others' mileage may vary.
SkiAdcock
Nov 8, 11, 7:24 pm
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Others' mileage may vary.
No, but the lady is getting tired of all the brickbats thrown at FT members over the years & the black helicopter b.s. OMMV.
Cheers.
RichMSN
Nov 8, 11, 7:28 pm
No, but the lady is getting tired of all the brickbats thrown at FT members over the years & the black helicopter b.s. OMMV.
Cheers.
It goes with the territory. If you're going to say that most motions are passed, then I'd like to know how many things were discussed and never proposed because people thought those motions wouldn't pass. It's a fair question. Putting only slam dunk proposals on the table -- I'd *expect* your percentage to be high...and meaningless. Personally, I'd rather see a *lot* of motions made with more failing. The black helicopters would go away if a lot more light was shone on the process, IMO.
I'd really like to take this conversation a step further, but since I'm a candidate I don't want to be accused of electioneering in this thread. Maybe a question like this will come up in the debate.
tcook052
Nov 8, 11, 8:02 pm
Sharon, I believe your stats prove just how DYSfunctional the TB has become.
Motions are not even MADE unless and until there is consensus to pass them except in rare instances.
That's not how it should work, because that:
1) keeps posters from knowing how TB members would vote on issues where consensus is not preordained, and
2) keeps posters from being able to hold TB member accountable for voting against things that they might support, or voting for things they might oppose.
Agree though don't believe it's happened as much this past year as previous years and previous TB's.
Dovster
Nov 8, 11, 9:23 pm
I don't believe that it is the number of motions which TalkBoard passes which determines whether or not it is dysfunctional. It is the type of motions which it considers (even if they fail) that is the crucial factor.
Almost every motion that TB even considers falls into one of three categories:
1. Establishing a forum.
2. Renaming a forum.
3. Determining TB's internal rules.
None of these are decisions that will have a major impact on the average member's FT experience.
The example I am about to give is obviously exaggerated but, under the current system, could indeed happen.
Monday: TB passes a rule requiring that any motion be unanimously approved before it is passed.
Tuesday: TB passes a motion establishing an Iberian Airlines Forum.
Wednesday: TB defeats a motion to establish an Aer Lingus Forum.
Thursday: Carol appoints Spiderman as moderator of the Iberian Airlines Forum.
Friday: Spiderman announces that posts about Aer Lingus will be allowed on the Iberian Airlines Forum.
Saturday: Spiderman announces that posts concerning Iberian Airlines are no longer allowed on the Iberian Airlines Forum.
I agree that we will probably never see that situation, but the fact that it is currently possible (it has been established more than once that a forum's moderators, and not TalkBoard, determines what can be posted on a particular forum) demonstrates that TalkBoard is like a car up on a lift in a garage -- its wheels may be spinning at a tremendous rate, but the car isn't going anywhere.
Moderation is currently (by Randy's fiat) off limits to TalkBoard, yet it is the function on FT which most impacts the members' experience here. Until such time that TB is able to convince Carol that it should have overall supervisory responsibility for moderation, the only group elected by the membership will remain a eunuch.
Markie
Nov 8, 11, 11:00 pm
The list of votes proved an interesting reminder of just how out of step I have been with the rest of TB. :)
TB does need to address itself to its internal operations a little more, but there was no taste for making the officers elections fairer. Restrictions on OMNI just weren't right in my view, and as it seems many candidates wish OMNI posts to count towards titles, it's high time titles were abolished!
By and large I agree that TB never gets its teeth in to the 'big stuff'. I hope that the new TB will be better able to make change than I have been able to do. My fault - probably - I have opinions and they tend to disagree with the majority of other TB members it seems. One of the reasons I decided not to re-run this year. I hope new TB can engage with Internet Brands in a meaningful way that delivers value to the membership.
Personally I will be voting for candidates who want radical change to the way TB operates and FT is run. However, as in previous years I suspect we will have 'evolution' and less 'revolution' in the new TB, and lots more motions to create more forums!
kipper
Nov 9, 11, 6:41 am
I'm only on for a few minutes, but a few comments.
First there have been comments that TB doesn't approve things, is hidebound, etc, etc, so yes if you're going to make the argument that stuff doesn't get approved & it's an example of how TB is hidebound, then you have to acknowledge maybe not so hidebound after all given the votes during the last 6 years. You can't have it both ways.
I went back during the last year & read the various threads brought up for discussion. There weren't that many not brought up for a vote, and on the ones that weren't even regular FTers couldn't agree on stuff. Could & should some of the items be brought up again? Yes. Should all of them be brought up again? Nah. Some didn't even get much input from FTers themselves.
TB seems to pass more than reject motions - and more importantly, it has done so over several years with dif TB members, not just the same ones.
So quite frankly I don't get the dsyfunctional comments because if you all believe that, then TB has been dsyfunctional from the very beginning of its existance.
This also gets back to TB members get their arse kicked if they do something & their arse kicked if they don't.
For example, if they do a motion before too much public discussion (as kipper & rich mention with sixt) - they get their arse kicked. If they wait too long, they get their arse kicked (as w/ some right now w/ A3).
And I don't buy totally that over the years or even now that motions only get made if it's going to be approved. We've had enough failed ones to prove that isn't true. And speaking for myself I vote on whether I think something is worthwhile/should be considered/approved, even if I think it might not pass. I have never once thought I'm voting on this because we're all a big kumbaya group. And I've been on the losing side of some motions, so it's not like something is guaranteed.
And I think it's total BS that because stuff is discussed in private TB that means something is wrong w/ the process. It allows TB to hash out things, go back/forth on their own, do their own homework. Private TB is not a everything gets approved & how do we look good for the members forum, and quite frankly it's insulting to suggest otherwise. It's especially insulting from someone who served before.
I definitely don't get koko's comment that he pushed stuff through that he thought would fail given most stuff passed during his prior term, and he voted yes on everything (when he didn't abstain). Pot/kettle? But this isn't about individuals.
Is TB perfect? No. Will it ever be perfect? No. Do TB members overall want what's best for FT? Yes, I believe so. And I continue to give respect to both past & present TB members who donated their time, expertise, and judgment to help make FT a better place, just as I will to future TB members.
PS - You're welcome. Not everyone would compile statistics for 6 years so that FTers could see 'at a glance' votes, topics, etc. ;)
Cheers.
For starters, I'd like to see something on the public TalkBoard forum saying, "TalkBoard is discussing whether or not to make a motion to do XYZ." That allows the general membership to be able to comment on it, rather than feeling ambushed with "TalkBoard is voting on a motion to do XYZ."
kokonutz
Nov 9, 11, 7:07 am
You know what would help? Making the private TB forum open to all posters on a read-only basis. That would freaking rock. Let the posters see how the sausage is made if they are so inclined. Having been in that secret room, I have to say that I think it would only serve the TB well for all posters to be able to see how thoughtful and thorough the TB can be.
Of course, Randy slapped a 30-days suspension on me that he claimed he would have made permanent if the moderator rules hadn't 'protected' me in the past for promising to spill the private TB forum beans, so I guess I probably ought to tread lightly. :o
Dov, I completely agree with you about the issue of TB and Moderators. The fact that the two exist with a giant wall between them is silly.
Sharon: of COURSE TalkBoard members are going to suffer slings and arrows. That's one of the first lines in the job description. One must have strength in the courage of their convictions to serve well without blowing a gasket.
travelkid
Nov 9, 11, 8:05 am
Sharon, I believe your stats prove just how DYSfunctional the TB has become.
Motions are not even MADE unless and until there is consensus to pass them except in rare instances.
That's not how it should work, because that:
1) keeps posters from knowing how TB members would vote on issues where consensus is not preordained, and
2) keeps posters from being able to hold TB member accountable for voting against things that they might support, or voting for things they might oppose.
So posters are left with a happy-la-la-la impression that the TB always passes things. But that leaves out the other half of the story: all the issues that are never even formally considered because they might not pass.
And since TB members are, imho, doing a worse and worse job of saying how they feel about non-motioned issues in the public TB forum, posters never even know how a TB member feels about an issue that is not brought to motion.
When I was on the TB, I forced votes on issues I thought would probably fail. Because posters deserve to know where their TB members stand on ALL issues, not just on ones where passage is already a done deal.
As RichMSN says, the current consensus-based approach has created lots of passed motions but dampened transparency considerably. In the end, that a terrible trade-off, imho.
Koko is as usual spot on.
PS - You're welcome. Not everyone would compile statistics for 6 years so that FTers could see 'at a glance' votes, topics, etc. ;)
Really great work - appreciate^
Moderation is currently (by Randy's fiat) off limits to TalkBoard, yet it is the function on FT which most impacts the members' experience here. Until such time that TB is able to convince Carol that it should have overall supervisory responsibility for moderation, the only group elected by the membership will remain a eunuch.
Definately a main issue. It really struck me as very strange when I learnt CC TOS (lots of it is far more dysfunctional than any bit of TB) are off limits to TB. Can this be true? I mean they have voted on access restrictions.
nsx
Nov 9, 11, 8:57 am
To me, this problem goes away if there's more transparency behind the scenes. Why should TalkBoard be able to discuss and debate a topic in private just to pre-determine that there aren't enough votes to pass, therefore neither the debate or a motion ever makes the light of day?
I am perhaps the biggest advocate of consensus-based action. Taking the time to hash out a proposal before freezing it and voting on it is, in my opinion, an unmitigated benefit to FT. It reduces sloppy drafting errors and it improves the substantive quality of the results.
Where you and others have a point, and where I and others have sometimes let FT members down, is that the existence of preliminary discussions is not always shared on TalkBoard Topics. When a TalkBoard member tosses out an idea for reaction, and the member doesn't even know himself whether the idea is worthy, I don't think that merits automatic posting in TalkBoard Topics. Those ideas usually go nowhere.
I'll give you an example from yesterday. I posted this idea on the private TB forum (and I am permitted to share my own posts, but not the posts of other TB members):
Two weeks for electing a President followed by another two weeks for electing a VP/Secretary is too long. Our members deserve a TalkBoard that is not effectively stalled for 4 weeks after each election. Not to mention the partial stall before the election.
Draft proposal:
The TalkBoard revises Section 4 of the TalkBoard Guidelines as follows:
current:
4. C. vi. Regular motions shall be kept open for a period of two weeks from the posting of the sticky poll unless
proposed:
4. C. vi. Officer election votes shall be kept open for a period of one week and Regular motions shall be kept open for a period of two weeks from the posting of the sticky poll unless
Now in this particular case it's an internal TB process issue, and the membership at large would not have the history of how the existing rule has worked out. The TB members are quite sufficient as a sounding board. This idea is not a slam dunk (I don't know if I'd even vote for it myself without changes) and therefore it's likely to die. If I hadn't posted it here as an example, it probably would never see the light of day.
Is it really a significant loss to FT that the members are not bored by every half-baked idea that gets shot down inside the TalkBoard? I've floated a lot of half-baked ideas during my time on TalkBoard. Only a few went anywhere at all. The threshold for being worth taking a vote should be pretty high, in my opinion.
What's the point of asking for a vote on a proposal that has minimal support? You might call it informing the FT members of the TalkBoard's position on an issue. I might call it grandstanding by the minority. We might both be right.
There is nothing stopping any TalkBoard member from arguing a minority point of view on TalkBoard Topics. TalkBoard members read that forum and we can be persuaded by good arguments, as I am being persuaded by the "count OMNI posts" advocates. But voting just for show is, IMHO, the wrong way to persuade. It hardens positions, making compromise more difficult. You might disagree with this, but you'd be wrong. ;)
It's better to get the compromise done before the vote, so that nobody needs to reverse position, something that is difficult for most human beings. Although I am impressed by the willingness of TalkBoard members to be persuaded to switch sides, the consensus first approach works with human nature, not against it.
RichMSN
Nov 9, 11, 9:01 am
I'll give you an example from yesterday. I posted this idea on the private TB forum (and I am permitted to share my own posts, but not the posts of other TB members):
Two weeks for electing a President followed by another two weeks for electing a VP/Secretary is too long. Our members deserve a TalkBoard that is not effectively stalled for 4 weeks after each election. Not to mention the partial stall before the election.
Draft proposal:
The TalkBoard revises Section 4 of the TalkBoard Guidelines as follows:
current:
4. C. vi. Regular motions shall be kept open for a period of two weeks from the posting of the sticky poll unless
proposed:
4. C. vi. Officer election votes shall be kept open for a period of one week and Regular motions shall be kept open for a period of two weeks from the posting of the sticky poll unless
Now in this particular case it's an internal TB process issue, and the membership at large would not have the history of how the existing rule has worked out. The TB members are quite sufficient as a sounding board. This idea is not a slam dunk (I don't know if I'd even vote for it myself without changes) and therefore it's likely to die. If I hadn't posted it here as an example, it probably would never see the light of day.
I would be very interested in this -- as a candidate and as someone who is interested in what the TB is doing. I'm sure others would be, too.
Personally, I think a 2-week voting period is too long for ANY vote. Sure, people go on vacations, work trips, travel, etc., but I would think that just about any vote could easily be completed in a week. Officer voting should be held over a shorter period than that, perhaps a predetermined 3-day period. Why have lame ducks in place and why leave the TB idle for 2 weeks while the new officers / members get seated?
nsx
Nov 9, 11, 9:05 am
So posters are left with a happy-la-la-la impression that the TB always passes things. But that leaves out the other half of the story: all the issues that are never even formally considered because they might not pass.
And since TB members are, imho, doing a worse and worse job of saying how they feel about non-motioned issues in the public TB forum, posters never even know how a TB member feels about an issue that is not brought to motion.
This is a valid criticism. I plead guilty to publicly sharing fewer of my preliminary ideas than I should. I should be willing to share the 90% defective ideas along with the 10% that succeed.
When I was on the TB, I forced votes on issues I thought would probably fail. Because posters deserve to know where their TB members stand on ALL issues, not just on ones where passage is already a done deal.
As RichMSN says, the current consensus-based approach has created lots of passed motions but dampened transparency considerably. In the end, that a terrible trade-off, imho.
This approach reduces the TB's ability to reach consensus, as I explained in my preceding post. It's the wrong way to attack the problem. The right way is for someone on the TalkBoard, and I mean you koko, to cajole other TB members into posting their preliminary ideas on TalkBoard Topics. We can have improved transparency without increased conflict.
nsx
Nov 9, 11, 9:21 am
You know what would help? Making the private TB forum open to all posters on a read-only basis. That would freaking rock. Let the posters see how the sausage is made if they are so inclined. Having been in that secret room, I have to say that I think it would only serve the TB well for all posters to be able to see how thoughtful and thorough the TB can be.
I agree that 80% of the posts on the private forum would be fine for public viewing. The discussion is very similar to that on TalkBoard Topics. However if 100% of the posts were made public, the discussion would change in some ways. For one thing, we wouldn't use each others actual names, a practice which builds camaraderie. For another, straw polls that we use in evaluating popularity of preliminary versions of proposals, would probably end. That would reduce the quality of our final product. Some discussion would move to private messages and be forever lost to the community. (Currently the only PMs tend to be a nudge to another TB member to take some action. All substantive discussion is posted on the forum.) There may be other unintended consequences, but these are enough to persuade me to be wary of the change you advocate.
Perhaps there is another way. Suppose a TalkBoard member, say you ;), would like to volunteer to make a digest of private posts. It would contain more than 80% of the content from the private forum over, say, the past year. Create a private Google document. TalkBoard members would be allowed to edit their own posts and review the entire document for accuracy. Then the entire TalkBoard would vote to release it to the community. Would that work for you?
SkiAdcock
Nov 9, 11, 9:44 am
For starters, I'd like to see something on the public TalkBoard forum saying, "TalkBoard is discussing whether or not to make a motion to do XYZ." That allows the general membership to be able to comment on it, rather than feeling ambushed with "TalkBoard is voting on a motion to do XYZ."
Your comment is a bit confusing, as most of the motions come from the public TB suggestions & discussions. So I'd have to disagree that TB is 'ambushing' the general membership when a motion is created.
Also I went back during the last year & read the various threads on public TB. There weren't too many that weren't brought up for discussion/motion.
A few that didn't even get much interest from FT members themselves. And some that were more 'hot potato' and that regular FTers & TB members couldn't get a handle on/come to much agreement. I'm sure those will get brought up again in the future, just as they have from prior year TB terms. ;)
I had a newbie* contact me this morning. He had stumbled across TB, was reading the threads, and said he was surprised & dismayed at the negativity that some FT members & TB candidates were expressing towards other members &/or candidates, and that he hoped all of FT wasn't like that. Also he said he was confused on how creating new airline or hotel or region forums wouldn't be measured a success, as presumably it helps FT become a better resource for travelers.
* He said it was ok to share what he said, but he didn't want his handle used because he's new & because he was concerned that people might give him a hard time for what he said. I told him that wasn't the case but that I would respect his wishes. I also said that, unlike TB :p :D, most of FT is quite friendly.
Cheers.
bhatnasx
Nov 9, 11, 10:12 am
Personally, I think a 2-week voting period is too long for ANY vote. Sure, people go on vacations, work trips, travel, etc., but I would think that just about any vote could easily be completed in a week. Officer voting should be held over a shorter period than that, perhaps a predetermined 3-day period. Why have lame ducks in place and why leave the TB idle for 2 weeks while the new officers / members get seated?
The resason 2 weeks is the standard voting time is because it gives members an opportunity to provide feedback & have discussion on something going to vote. Often times, folks don't comment until something is actually gone to vote.
Also, it does take into account people's travel schedules (I don't travel as much as I used to for business, but there were times when I wasn't near a computer with reliable internet access for several days). I support the 2 weeks for general voting.
kipper
Nov 9, 11, 10:13 am
I am perhaps the biggest advocate of consensus-based action. Taking the time to hash out a proposal before freezing it and voting on it is, in my opinion, an unmitigated benefit to FT. It reduces sloppy drafting errors and it improves the substantive quality of the results.
Where you and others have a point, and where I and others have sometimes let FT members down, is that the existence of preliminary discussions is not always shared on TalkBoard Topics. When a TalkBoard member tosses out an idea for reaction, and the member doesn't even know himself whether the idea is worthy, I don't think that merits automatic posting in TalkBoard Topics. Those ideas usually go nowhere.
I'll give you an example from yesterday. I posted this idea on the private TB forum (and I am permitted to share my own posts, but not the posts of other TB members):
Two weeks for electing a President followed by another two weeks for electing a VP/Secretary is too long. Our members deserve a TalkBoard that is not effectively stalled for 4 weeks after each election. Not to mention the partial stall before the election.
Draft proposal:
The TalkBoard revises Section 4 of the TalkBoard Guidelines as follows:
current:
4. C. vi. Regular motions shall be kept open for a period of two weeks from the posting of the sticky poll unless
proposed:
4. C. vi. Officer election votes shall be kept open for a period of one week and Regular motions shall be kept open for a period of two weeks from the posting of the sticky poll unless
Now in this particular case it's an internal TB process issue, and the membership at large would not have the history of how the existing rule has worked out. The TB members are quite sufficient as a sounding board. This idea is not a slam dunk (I don't know if I'd even vote for it myself without changes) and therefore it's likely to die. If I hadn't posted it here as an example, it probably would never see the light of day.
Is it really a significant loss to FT that the members are not bored by every half-baked idea that gets shot down inside the TalkBoard? I've floated a lot of half-baked ideas during my time on TalkBoard. Only a few went anywhere at all. The threshold for being worth taking a vote should be pretty high, in my opinion.
What's the point of asking for a vote on a proposal that has minimal support? You might call it informing the FT members of the TalkBoard's position on an issue. I might call it grandstanding by the minority. We might both be right.
There is nothing stopping any TalkBoard member from arguing a minority point of view on TalkBoard Topics. TalkBoard members read that forum and we can be persuaded by good arguments, as I am being persuaded by the "count OMNI posts" advocates. But voting just for show is, IMHO, the wrong way to persuade. It hardens positions, making compromise more difficult. You might disagree with this, but you'd be wrong. ;)
It's better to get the compromise done before the vote, so that nobody needs to reverse position, something that is difficult for most human beings. Although I am impressed by the willingness of TalkBoard members to be persuaded to switch sides, the consensus first approach works with human nature, not against it.
What is the harm in posting in the general TalkBoard Topics section, "Seeking Comments on Changing Section 4 of the TalkBoard Guidelines"?
Your comment is a bit confusing, as most of the motions come from the public TB suggestions & discussions. So I'd have to disagree that TB is 'ambushing' the general membership when a motion is created.
Also I went back during the last year & read the various threads on public TB. There weren't too many that weren't brought up for discussion/motion.
A few that didn't even get much interest from FT members themselves. And some that were more 'hot potato' and that regular FTers & TB members couldn't get a handle on/come to much agreement. I'm sure those will get brought up again in the future, just as they have from prior year TB terms. ;)
I had a newbie* contact me this morning. He had stumbled across TB, was reading the threads, and said he was surprised & dismayed at the negativity that some FT members & TB candidates were expressing towards other members &/or candidates, and that he hoped all of FT wasn't like that. Also he said he was confused on how creating new airline or hotel or region forums wouldn't be measured a success, as presumably it helps FT become a better resource for travelers.
* He said it was ok to share what he said, but he didn't want his handle used because he's new & because he was concerned that people might give him a hard time for what he said. I told him that wasn't the case but that I would respect his wishes. I also said that, unlike TB :p :D, most of FT is quite friendly.
Cheers.
I guess I'd like to give the general membership more notice that TalkBoard is considering things, even if motions haven't been made. It gives more people a chance to comment and share their opinions on the topic.
Really, all I'm asking for is rather than telling members, "We're voting on this motion," tell the members, "We're considering drafting a proposal to do this."
Another potential benefit of that is that you might have a member suggest a draft proposal that really knocks the ball out of the park.
RichMSN
Nov 9, 11, 11:54 am
The resason 2 weeks is the standard voting time is because it gives members an opportunity to provide feedback & have discussion on something going to vote. Often times, folks don't comment until something is actually gone to vote.
I get your point, but I think (if this is true) it's unfortunate that TB members don't discuss until a vote is pending.
Also, I'm not sure how this jibes with the other message I'm reading -- that motions aren't even made until consensus is built.
I'm not sure how both of the above can be true. Either a consensus is being made before a motion is made or folks don't comment or discuss until something has gone to vote.
I'm really starting to understand why governments and the like have sunshine laws in place. Maybe a non-TB member should be privy to the private TB forum as an ombudsman or liaison.
RichMSN
Nov 9, 11, 12:03 pm
Your comment is a bit confusing, as most of the motions come from the public TB suggestions & discussions. So I'd have to disagree that TB is 'ambushing' the general membership when a motion is created.
Also I went back during the last year & read the various threads on public TB. There weren't too many that weren't brought up for discussion/motion.
A few that didn't even get much interest from FT members themselves. And some that were more 'hot potato' and that regular FTers & TB members couldn't get a handle on/come to much agreement. I'm sure those will get brought up again in the future, just as they have from prior year TB terms. ;)
I had a newbie* contact me this morning. He had stumbled across TB, was reading the threads, and said he was surprised & dismayed at the negativity that some FT members & TB candidates were expressing towards other members &/or candidates, and that he hoped all of FT wasn't like that. Also he said he was confused on how creating new airline or hotel or region forums wouldn't be measured a success, as presumably it helps FT become a better resource for travelers.
* He said it was ok to share what he said, but he didn't want his handle used because he's new & because he was concerned that people might give him a hard time for what he said. I told him that wasn't the case but that I would respect his wishes. I also said that, unlike TB :p :D, most of FT is quite friendly.
Cheers.
I find this incredibly disappointing, Sharon. Hearsay in order to make a point? Really? :D
I'm not sure what someone would expect -- we're in the middle of an election month here and there are people running for the TB who think the TB has been (1) too secretive and (2) incredibly ineffective. Some of us have passionate feelings about FT (I know, IJAFIBB) and we're not shy about making our opinions heard. Quite frankly, FT is one of the most tame IBBs I've ever seen -- and that's a testament to the posters AND the moderators.
goalie
Nov 9, 11, 12:49 pm
I don't believe that it is the number of motions which TalkBoard passes which determines whether or not it is dysfunctional. It is the type of motions which it considers (even if they fail) that is the crucial factor......Bolding mine: And you sir, have hit the proverbial nail smack dab on top of the head ^. It's about quality and not quantity.
Moderation is currently (by Randy's fiat) off limits to TalkBoard, yet it is the function on FT which most impacts the members' experience here. Until such time that TB is able to convince Carol that it should have overall supervisory responsibility for moderation, the only group elected by the membership will remain a eunuch.And as I say in my campaing statement....
Moderators and TalkBoard:
Now, I’m going to get myself in trouble ;) but I do believe that there should be a separation of the two and that a Moderator should not be a member of TalkBoard (and vice-versa). For simplicity’s sake, one makes the rules and the other enforces the rules and imho, never the two should be combined.
dhammer53
Nov 9, 11, 2:45 pm
Attention TB candidates
It's threads like this one, for better or for worse, that should make you think hard about running for TalkBoard. Like I said, for better or for worse.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, read this... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/278942-so-youre-running-talk-board.html
bhatnasx
Nov 9, 11, 2:49 pm
I get your point, but I think (if this is true) it's unfortunate that TB members don't discuss until a vote is pending.
Also, I'm not sure how this jibes with the other message I'm reading -- that motions aren't even made until consensus is built.
I'm not sure how both of the above can be true. Either a consensus is being made before a motion is made or folks don't comment or discuss until something has gone to vote.
I'm really starting to understand why governments and the like have sunshine laws in place. Maybe a non-TB member should be privy to the private TB forum as an ombudsman or liaison.
In my experience, the TB generally does discuss things prior to a vote. With the rules stating that a topic must be discussed for at least 2 days prior to going to vote, that's the minimum required amount of time. I know that I've gone on 2-3 night backpacking trips with no internet access whatsoever and I've gone on vacations where I'm offline for 2+ days, and I hate to say it, but when I get back, FlyerTalk isn't always my priority - sometimes it's my actual job that pays my salary. ;)
Most people aren't offline for 2 full weeks - but a 2 day motion + a 7 day voting period is 9 days in which a vote can run its course - that's not always enough time to gather thoughts, do independent research (I don't always trust what my fellow TB'ers tell me to think & I like to do my own research and gather my own feedback before making a commitment to a vote).
RichMSN
Nov 9, 11, 2:59 pm
Attention TB candidates
It's threads like this one, for better or for worse, that should make you think hard about running for TalkBoard. Like I said, for better or for worse.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, read this... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/278942-so-youre-running-talk-board.html
I guess you need to hit me over the head with a 2x4, cause I'm missing your point.
I think there's room for people on TB who want to make a bit more of a difference than I think the past few TBs have made. Maybe I'm missing your point.
SkiAdcock
Nov 10, 11, 7:47 am
I find this incredibly disappointing, Sharon. Hearsay in order to make a point? Really? :D
I'm not sure what someone would expect -- we're in the middle of an election month here and there are people running for the TB who think the TB has been (1) too secretive and (2) incredibly ineffective. Some of us have passionate feelings about FT (I know, IJAFIBB) and we're not shy about making our opinions heard. Quite frankly, FT is one of the most tame IBBs I've ever seen -- and that's a testament to the posters AND the moderators.
Well if you all weren't big meanies :p :D, maybe the newbie would have posted in his own name rather than contacting me. @:-) I told him to head off to the miles/points programs where he can learn more & where, for the most part ;), folk are friendly :)
I can't speak for prior year TBs, but with the exception of 2 members (who aren't running again), this TB has been very engaged & participating in public TB threads on a regular basis, so I really don't get the secrecy comments (not just yours Rich, but some of the others as well). I don't think this year's TB has been shy about sharing its thoughts on topics brought up for discussion or motion.
TB candidates have been saying TB has been ineffective for years for crikey's sake. So it's either been dysfunctional since day 1 or it just gives you all something to campaign about :p :D
BTW - you're welcome again. By starting this thread I ended up giving you all another thread for electioneering ;), which actually wasn't my intent but is the result nonetheless.
And in closing & to quote myself:
I believe that every person who runs and/or is elected to TB does so because they believe in FT, think they can contribute to it more than just posting in forums &/or want to give back in an additional capacity, and wants what is best for FT.
Sometimes things get passed, sometimes they don’t, and sometimes there’s not enough interest by either regular FTers or TB members to bring something to a motion/vote.
And - I totally respect all past & current TB members who gave/are giving of their time, thought, consideration, to help make FT a better BB. I might not have agreed with them all the time, nor them with me, but I think that all of us, whether TB or FTers, have FT's best interests at heart.
And it's a pretty good bulletin board for one's travels needs and questions, and it has an excellent community. 'Nuf said.
Cheers.
RichMSN
Nov 10, 11, 8:06 am
BTW - you're welcome again. By starting this thread I ended up giving you all another thread for electioneering ;), which actually wasn't my intent but is the result nonetheless.
Sharon, I'm trying not to electioneer, but this thread is an odd one and was posted right in the middle of the TB election month. Had you posted this in December, I don't think many of us would've done more than :rolleyes: and moved on.
I had a different paragraph here, but I'll endeavor to electioneer in the proper place.
Dovster
Nov 10, 11, 9:16 am
By starting this thread I ended up giving you all another thread for electioneering ;), which actually wasn't my intent but is the result nonetheless.
Being the most frequently announced non-candidate for TalkBoard, I can assure you that I was not electioneering when I made my post (except, of course, for N830MH, and I have no idea of how he feels about this issue).
SkiAdcock
Nov 10, 11, 11:45 am
Sharon, I'm trying not to electioneer, but this thread is an odd one and was posted right in the middle of the TB election month. Had you posted this in December, I don't think many of us would've done more than :rolleyes: and moved on.
Or in October, although hopefully not everyone would :rolleyes: but find some of the information valuable.
Didn't really think about the timing when I posted it. I was curious when people kept saying TB was hidebound, didn't pass stuff, and ended up posting results for 6 years. FWIW - I was expecting to see more fails than passes based on comments, so was actually quite surprised to see that passes were more than fails - and it was consistent over several years.
But I'll let you all get back to election stuff & posting in the candidates questions. I've been reading them all, and it's quite interesting. A lot of different platforms.
Cheers.
goalie
Nov 10, 11, 1:25 pm
...And in closing & to quote myself:
I believe that every person who runs and/or is elected to TB does so because they believe in FT, think they can contribute to it more than just posting in forums &/or want to give back in an additional capacity, and wants what is best for FT.
Sometimes things get passed, sometimes they don’t, and sometimes there’s not enough interest by either regular FTers or TB members to bring something to a motion/vote.
And - I totally respect all past & current TB members who gave/are giving of their time, thought, consideration, to help make FT a better BB. I might not have agreed with them all the time, nor them with me, but I think that all of us, whether TB or FTers, have FT's best interests at heart.
And it's a pretty good bulletin board for one's travels needs and questions, and it has an excellent community. 'Nuf said.
Cheers.And your "Nuf said" is pretty good in my book on all points ^
dhammer53
Nov 10, 11, 3:29 pm
I guess you need to hit me over the head with a 2x4, cause I'm missing your point.
I think there's room for people on TB who want to make a bit more of a difference than I think the past few TBs have made. Maybe I'm missing your point.
It wasn't my intention to vote for you (haven't made any decisions yet), but maybe I should. :p