TalkBoard Topics - Your thoughts, please: 2 week voting period for TB motions

Hi,

The current process for TB motions is that once a subject is introduced either here or in the private TB forum a motion can be made by a TB member after a 48-hour waiting period. Once that motion is made and seconded, a vote is opened and that starts a 2-week clock for voting.

One thing's clear: Once a motion has 6 yea votes or 4 nay votes, the vote is, for all practical purposes, decided. Even if this happens on the first day of voting, if a TB member either is unavailable or even wishes to delay the announcement or implementation of a completed vote, he or she can do so by simply not voting or waiting to vote until the last minute. In the past TB, there were members who stopped participating altogether and one, two years ago, was removed from the TB. Even then, the poll took two full weeks in order to give the person being removed a chance to (again) not submit a vote.

I'm considering making a motion where the TB would announce merely whether a motion has passed or failed once enough votes in either direction are tallied. The votes, at that point, could remain private until either all 9 TB members have voted or the time period expires, at which point the TB VP would make a subsequent post announcing the way everyone voted.

The main motivation for this is that it's possible that there could be a number of lengthy debates where FT members continue to passionately argue for motions (one way or another) when votes could actually be decided. I think it's disrespectful for our members and our members' time for us to continue to operate this way.

I posted a trial balloon in the private forum a while back and I think it's important for me and for others on the TB to see if anyone (not on the TB) has any strong feelings about this one way or another.

I see this as a solution in search of a problem, and really (speaking only for myself) falls under the is this all TB has to think about instead of thinking of ways to make FT a better place for those with travel-related interests category.

The voting process is 2 weeks or until TB members have voted. Announcing an outcome before all TB members have voted makes absolutely no sense to me (yes, even if we know it's going to pass or - alternatively - fail), and also does a disservice to TB members who haven't voted, aka, hey do whatever you want, we don't care, we already announced that this has passed or failed, so really you don't matter at this point, but thanks for eventually voting so we can post a nice tidy 9-member vote after we've announced the outcome.

Sometimes votes happen quickly; sometimes they don't. Sometimes, even if something will pass or fail, a TB member who hasn't voted still wants input before making his/her decision.

The FT world isn't going to fall apart if we wait until all TB members have voted before announcing the outcome of a motion.

BTW - I say that as someone who, when not on TB, suggested forums for TB to consider & when they made it into a motion (two times) would have liked to have known the outcome but was willing to let due process take its course & also didn't think the until everyone voted or 2 weeks was an onorous timeframe before finding out the outcome.

I'll go on record as saying that if this comes to a motion I will vote against it.

Cheers.

I'm OK with that. At least you'd be making your feelings known with your vote and telling everyone here that pages and pages of debate could continue on and on and on even after a motion receives 6 yea or 4 no votes.

The more I think about it, the more I think this motion is appropriate. Maybe not quite in this form, but in some form.

Your argument here makes no sense to me. I'm not sure non-TB members know this, but TB members that have not voted yet *know* how many yea votes have been cast, how many no votes have been cast and who's cast which votes.

We also know, by the process of elimination, who hasn't yet voted.

I'm not sure how announcing that a motion has carried and witholding the public announcement of who voted which way changes a thing OTHER than it stops needless public debate and stops the unnecessary delay of, for example, opening a new forum. It still allows me to come in and make a late vote and nobody outside of TB would know who voted late.

I see this as a solution in search of a problem, and really (speaking only for myself) falls under the is this all TB has to think about instead of thinking of ways to make FT a better place for those with travel-related interests category.

The voting process is 2 weeks or until TB members have voted. Announcing an outcome before all TB members have voted makes absolutely no sense to me (yes, even if we know it's going to pass or - alternatively - fail), and also does a disservice to TB members who haven't voted, aka, hey do whatever you want, we don't care, we already announced that this has passed or failed, so really you don't matter at this point, but thanks for eventually voting so we can post a nice tidy 9-member vote after we've announced the outcome.

The FT world isn't going to fall apart if we wait until all TB members have voted before announcing the outcome of a motion.

BTW - I say that as someone who, when not on TB, suggested forums for TB to consider & when they made it into a motion (two times) would have liked to have known the outcome but was willing to let due process take its course & also didn't think the until everyone voted or 2 weeks was an onorous timeframe.

I'll go on record as saying that if this comes to a motion I will vote against it.

Cheers.

^^

^^

That's fine. Again, I may be quite lonely on my little island. But I'd rather be lonely on my little island in public where everyone can see me being that way than in the private TB forum.

--Rich

Here is what I posted about this idea in the private TB forum:

I agree that it makes more sense, once a motion gets 6 votes for or 4 votes against, for the result to be announced.

It just seems pretty silly (and even a little cruel) to continue public and/or private debate on a matter for up to 2 weeks if the issue has already been decided one way or the other.

Well maybe cruel is a strong word, but for there to be a debate when the decision is already made is at the very least a waste of a poster's time and and would probably anger a lot of folks if they knew they were wasting their time debating an issue that has already been decided.

Then again, some of us love to debate an issue that has already been decided. :D

I'm OK with that. At least you'd be making your feelings known with your vote and telling everyone here that pages and pages of debate could continue on and on and on even after a motion receives 6 yea or 4 no votes.

The more I think about it, the more I think this motion is appropriate. Maybe not quite in this form, but in some form.

Your argument here makes no sense to me. I'm not sure non-TB members know this, but TB members that have not voted yet *know* how many yea votes have been cast, how many no votes have been cast and who's cast which votes.

We also know, by the process of elimination, who hasn't yet voted.

I'm not sure how announcing that a motion has carried and witholding the public announcement of who voted which way changes a thing OTHER than it stops needless public debate and stops the unnecessary delay of, for example, opening a new forum. It still allows me to come in and make a late vote and nobody outside of TB would know who voted late.

There is no such thing as 'voting late'. There is a 2- week timeframe to vote, and part of that is because sometimes TB members are traveling & don't have i-net access or work or life stuff intervenes.

It doesn't really matter if a TB member can see how other TB members have voted or which way they've voted. Each TB member has to vote based on what the input from FTers is, as well as their own judgment, and just because some TB members have voted enough for something to go one way or the other doesn't negate the remaining TB members votes or their wanting continued input before casting their votes.

Seriously, the FT/TB world isn't going to fall apart if announcements don't happen until all 9 votes are counted.

Cheers.

There is no such thing as 'voting late'. There is a 2- week timeframe to vote, and part of that is because sometimes TB members are traveling & don't have i-net access or work or life stuff intervenes.

It doesn't really matter if a TB member can see how other TB members have voted or which way they've voted. Each TB member has to vote based on what the input from FTers is, as well as their own judgment, and just because some TB members have voted enough for something to go one way or the other doesn't negate the remaining TB members votes or their wanting continued input before casting their votes.

Seriously, the FT/TB world isn't going to fall apart if announcements don't happen until all 9 votes are counted.

Cheers.


While I appreciate your opinion, I'm really most interested in the opinions of the people who put us on TalkBoard -- the people who could conceivably post passionately on threads for days and days while a motion sits already decided waiting for a vote or two. Maybe I'm the only person who cares. I'd prefer letting this run for a while and get input/feedback.

Just to be clear what we are talking about here, hypothetically the Air Berlin motion could have enough votes right now to pass and could already be created and up and running (assuming the CD accepts the TB's recommendation to create it) but as one or two or three TB members have not voted yet the VP/Secretary and all other TB members are unable to announce the inevitable result.

So posters in this hypothetical example continue to give their input/lobby/debate the issue even though it is already decided one way or the other.

The question is: Is that ok?

While I appreciate your opinion, I'm really most interested in the opinions of the people who put us on TalkBoard -- the people who could conceivably post passionately on threads for days and days while a motion sits already decided waiting for a vote or two. Maybe I'm the only person who cares. I'd prefer letting this run for a while and get input/feedback.

You must be smoking something :D :D FTers will discuss for days & days anyway, and will discuss for days and days even after the vote is officially posted.

I guess I have a problem with you telling FTers on the one hand that their input is valued, yet on the other hand you're saying it's not when some TB members still want to hear input from FTers before making their decision/do their fiduciary responsibility.

FWIW - you did hear from one FTer about it - me, and I passed my opinion as someone who was not on TB, but has suggested forums & was vastly interested in the outcome, but was willing to wait until all votes were cast.

BTW - given it's the middle of a long holiday weekend in the US, I don't think you'll (we'll) get tons of input on anything until folk are back from holidays, SIN Do, etc. Yikes - speaking of which - gotta run.

Cheers.

You must be smoking something :D :D FTers will discuss for days & days anyway, and will discuss for days and days even after the vote is officially posted.

I guess I have a problem with you telling FTers on the one hand that their input is valued, yet on the other hand you're saying it's not when some TB members still want to hear input from FTers before making their decision/do their fiduciary responsibility.

FWIW - you did hear from one FTer about it - me, and I passed my opinion as someone who was not on TB, but has suggested forums & was vastly interested in the outcome, but was willing to wait until all votes were cast.

BTW - given it's the middle of a long holiday weekend in the US, I don't think you'll (we'll) get tons of input on anything until folk are back from holidays, SIN Do, etc. Yikes - speaking of which - gotta run.

Cheers.

Long holiday weekend? Maybe for some. I'm working tomorrow, my wife's working tomorrow, and my kid has a regular school day (some public schools have a holiday around here, some don't). Some holiday weekend.

I'm willing to wait for opinions here, though. Nothing's been decided yet, unlike motions that already have six yea or four no votes. @:-)

Just to be clear what we are talking about here, hypothetically the Air Berlin motion could have enough votes right now to pass and could already be created and up and running (assuming the CD accepts the TB's recommendation to create it) but as one or two or three TB members have not voted yet the VP/Secretary and all other TB members are unable to announce the inevitable result.

So posters in this hypothetical example continue to give their input/lobby/debate the issue even though it is already decided one way or the other.

The question is: Is that ok?

Let me ask the opposite - what actual harm is being done with any forum or posts counting or not counting, or any topic/motion, if a vote isn't announced until all TB members have voted?

Posts will continue to go in the threads re: a topic where they currently go, posts will count or not count, images would exist or not exist. The FT world will not fall apart based on a couple days.

And I'm very concerned that some TB members want to discount FTers input when the voting process is still open as though their input doesn't matter, and that the remaining TB members votes don't matter either.

Cheers.

Let me ask the opposite - what actual harm is being done with any forum or posts counting or not counting, or any topic/motion, if a vote isn't announced until all TB members have voted?

Posts will continue to go in the threads re: a topic where they currently go, posts will count or not count, images would exist or not exist. The FT world will not fall apart based on a couple days.

And I'm very concerned that some TB members want to discount FTers input when the voting process is still open as though their input doesn't matter, and that the remaining TB members votes don't matter either.

Cheers.

It's not that their input doesn't matter -- it's that their opinion is not going to change the outcome of the motion. They can always post their opinions after the fact, just as always.

Let me ask the opposite - what actual harm is being done with any forum or posts counting or not counting, or any topic/motion, if a vote isn't announced until all TB members have voted?

Posts will continue to go in the threads re: a topic where they currently go, posts will count or not count, images would exist or not exist. The FT world will not fall apart based on a couple days.

And I'm very concerned that some TB members want to discount FTers input when the voting process is still open as though their input doesn't matter, and that the remaining TB members votes don't matter either.

Cheers.

Once a TB member votes, that vote is final. So after a TB member votes, input while welcome has no influence.

If a TB member wants to wait 13 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes to vote that is his or her right. But if 6 other TBers have voted yes or 4 TBers have voted no, no amount of input is going to change the outcome even if it does affect how that TB member votes.

My first thought was that stating the "winner" before everyone had voted might affect the votes of those who voted after the minimum requirements for winning/losing. But I have learned something about the TB internal voting process. If everyone on the TB can already see the interim voting counts (and even who voted for what), then going ahead and notifying the wider FT "public" once a vote's outcome had been decided doesn't change anything other than letting everyone else know earlier in the process what the outcome is.

So if I understood the TB process correctly, every TB member can still vote within the two weeks voting timeframe. Since the individual votes would still be "private", no one outside the TB would actually know who voted for what. I don't see any type of coercement as being an issue.

So basically, while I don't think waiting two weeks is a major hardship, I do agree that in some discussions, especially the more "discussed" ones, the longer the discussion goes on, the stronger some opinions and posts can get. And it might be helpful to let everyone know the outcome, thus letting people move on to the next big issue.

At the moment, I don't really see any downside, but can see at least some modest upside.

It's not that their input doesn't matter -- it's that their opinion is not going to change the outcome of the motion.
What matters is not if their opinion will change the outcome of the motion. It's the voting hasn't fully completed until all TBers cast their votes. The (democratic) process matters and should matter.

Not to mention it may come the time when say TBers have to voice how they vote if they decide to run in the next and/or future elections. Track record matters as well.

Two weeks really isn't that long. What's the hurry, really? Doesn't TB have better issues to consider, such as improving FT, than rushing a just process? :confused:

<snip>

I'll go on record as saying that if this comes to a motion I will vote against it.

^^^

My two hockey pucks.....

Yes, once there are 6 yays or 4 neins, the outcome is decided but (and speaking as TB member), I was elected to serve and to vote with my voting record being made known to all members once "the results are in.

If (for sake of argument) there is a 6-2 vote with my vote not yet counted, the results should not be posted until either I vote or not vote as that reflects on me-both good and bad. I voted and it passed-good, I voted and it lost-good (as I still voted) but if I haven't vote and the results come in-bad as even if the vote is a done deal, I want my vote counted. If I don't vote-bad on me as that's not what I was elected for and the members have a right to know that (as do TB members as if it becomes "habit forming", I can be removed from office)

Just to be clear what we are talking about here, hypothetically the Air Berlin motion could have enough votes right now to pass and could already be created and up and running (assuming the CD accepts the TB's recommendation to create it) but as one or two or three TB members have not voted yet the VP/Secretary and all other TB members are unable to announce the inevitable result.

So posters in this hypothetical example continue to give their input/lobby/debate the issue even though it is already decided one way or the other.

The question is: Is that ok?

Yes. The polls are still open.

My two hockey pucks.....

Yes, once there are 6 yays or 4 neins, the outcome is decided but (and speaking as TB member), I was elected to serve and to vote with my voting record being made known to all members once "the results are in.

If (for sake of argument) there is a 6-2 vote with my vote not yet counted, the results should not be posted until either I vote or not vote as that reflects on me-both good and bad. I voted and it passed-good, I voted and it lost-good (as I still voted) but if I haven't vote and the results come in-bad as even if the vote is a done deal, I want my vote counted. If I don't vote-bad on me as that's not what I was elected for and the members have a right to know that (as do TB members as if it becomes "habit forming", I can be removed from office)

This is not what I proposed here.

There'd be a post made that would say that the motion has been approved or failed. Everyone would know this just as we would.

You'd still have 14 days and the vote totals and who voted what would not be made public until 9 votes were in or 14 days elapsed.

If (for sake of argument) there is a 6-2 vote with my vote not yet counted, the results should not be posted until either I vote or not vote as that reflects on me-both good and bad.My understanding of the proposal is not that the complete results would be posted. Only that it has received enough votes to pass or to fail, nothing more. Today, if 6 yes votes have posted before you vote, you can already see that there have been enough votes for the proposal to pass. So the only difference is all the non-TB FTers will know a little more quickly whether a motion has passed or not.

And unless each of the 6 TB members who voted "yes" all posted that they voted yes and they were the first 6 persons to vote, nobody will be able to tell whether your vote was the 7th or later yes. And since the final tally won't be published until after all members have voted, nobody will be able to tell if you voted "no" before the 6 "yes" votes or after. They will only see what your vote was, not when.

I would actually like to see the voting happen in the public forum... once a motion gets seconded, post the poll in this public forum.... and do yoru voting in the open. That way, we see how a vote is going... and stop trying to convince members who have voted... or when a vote has been decided.

Debate can still happen on the private forum, but just have the vote on the public forum.

That would be transparent!

I would actually like to see the voting happen in the public forum... once a motion gets seconded, post the poll in this public forum.... and do yoru voting in the open. That way, we see how a vote is going... and stop trying to convince members who have voted... or when a vote has been decided.

Debate can still happen on the private forum, but just have the vote on the public forum.

That would be transparent!

I like this option! ^

Gave it a hard thought, as there are good arguments on both sides but;

At the moment, I don't really see any downside, but can see at least some modest upside.

I ended up here^

Two weeks really isn't that long. What's the hurry, really? Doesn't TB have better issues to consider, such as improving FT, than rushing a just process? :confused:

As too much is out of TBs purview, we end up with too much focus on this. But housekeeping is also progress.

I would actually like to see the voting happen in the public forum... once a motion gets seconded, post the poll in this public forum.... and do yoru voting in the open. That way, we see how a vote is going... and stop trying to convince members who have voted... or when a vote has been decided.

Debate can still happen on the private forum, but just have the vote on the public forum.

That would be transparent!

Great idea. Im sure others will agree.

I would actually like to see the voting happen in the public forum... once a motion gets seconded, post the poll in this public forum.... and do yoru voting in the open. That way, we see how a vote is going... and stop trying to convince members who have voted... or when a vote has been decided.

Debate can still happen on the private forum, but just have the vote on the public forum.

That would be transparent!

Great idea! ^

I would actually like to see the voting happen in the public forum... once a motion gets seconded, post the poll in this public forum.... and do yoru voting in the open. That way, we see how a vote is going... and stop trying to convince members who have voted... or when a vote has been decided.

Debate can still happen on the private forum, but just have the vote on the public forum.

That would be transparent!Like ^

I wouldn't care personally, but I think there are limitations in the vBulletin polling we use. Not sure there's a way to restrict voting to just the nine members of TB if the poll is posted in the public TB forum.

I wouldn't care personally, but I think there are limitations in the vBulletin polling we use. Not sure there's a way to restrict voting to just the nine members of TB if the poll is posted in the public TB forum.

VP can post plain text.

I'm not sure I favor this. Rather than telling you why I'm hesitant, I'd rather see opinions on how such a public voting process would benefit FT.

Why not make the change; keeps the membership informed of what's going on.

I think it's disrespectful for our members and our members' time for us to continue to operate this way.

I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Why not wait until the debate has completed and then vote? If you can vote at the moment that the debate opens then what is the point in having the debate? Why ask for member's views if you've already voted?

I suggest that there is a 2 week debate period after which time the vote is cast and the motion decided.

I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Why not wait until the debate has completed and then vote? If you can vote at the moment that the debate opens then what is the point in having the debate? Why ask for member's views if you've already voted?

I suggest that there is a 2 week debate period after which time the vote is cast and the motion decided.

Because I don't think that every topic requires a huge amount of debate and doesn't require me to listen to every opinion from every person that posts.

The Air Berlin forum I voted on almost immediately. It was a no-brainer.

The post counts I voted on almost immediately. It was part of my platform and I was elected. I promised I'd vote for it and I did.

Not every issue requires a poll. That's not what a representative group does -- poll the users every time there's an issue.

No chance I'd ever vote for this. I'd like to shorten the voting cycle, not increase it.

Although Matthandys suggestions has merits- especially on complex issues- I have to agree with RichMSN.

I wouldn't care personally, but I think there are limitations in the vBulletin polling we use. Not sure there's a way to restrict voting to just the nine members of TB if the poll is posted in the public TB forum.
Perhaps if members were given "read-only" access to a TB voting forum, members would be able to see the poll and results, but not vote?
I'm not sure I favor this. Rather than telling you why I'm hesitant, I'd rather see opinions on how such a public voting process would benefit FT.
It would allow members to see who had voted and who had not, thus allowing them to PM those who had not voted, if they so desired, to express their opinion. For those who would stop debating something once the motion received enough votes to pass or was voted down, it would allow them to stop debating it. It would also show members if there was someone on TB who often delayed voting until the very end, in order to prevent implementation of something as long as possible.

I would actually like to see the voting happen in the public forum... once a motion gets seconded, post the poll in this public forum.... and do yoru voting in the open. That way, we see how a vote is going... and stop trying to convince members who have voted... or when a vote has been decided.

Debate can still happen on the private forum, but just have the vote on the public forum.

That would be transparent!

OMG. That is such an awesome idea that I am kicking myself for not coming up with it!

If we can't give posters read-only access to the TB forum (as I believe we should) we should at least let them watch the voting live!!!!!! ^^^^^

OMG. That is such an awesome idea that I am kicking myself for not coming up with it!

If we can't give posters read-only access to the TB forum (as I believe we should) we should at least let them watch the voting live!!!!!! ^^^^^

As someone said, it would require a new forum/subforum with only TB members able to vote on motions. I'm OK with it.

Well, a fellow hokie recommended it... that should count for something... :)

I remember when I was on Talkboard... and there were people still "debating" an issue in public even though a vote had been decided... just waiting for one person to record their vote... just felt wrong that people were wasting their time on motions that had been decided.

Hopefully, there would be some way to make it happen.... or perhaps put the voting in the Talkboard Votes subforum.... with the masses having read only access.

OMG. That is such an awesome idea that I am kicking myself for not coming up with it!

If we can't give posters read-only access to the TB forum (as I believe we should) we should at least let them watch the voting live!!!!!! ^^^^^

Well, a fellow hokie recommended it... that should count for something... :)

I remember when I was on Talkboard... and there were people still "debating" an issue in public even though a vote had been decided... just waiting for one person to record their vote... just felt wrong that people were wasting their time on motions that had been decided.

That's why I started this thread.

This idea seems to make a lot of sense to me, so I would highly encourage support by the TB.

IMO, a needless solution in search of a problem that adds additional TB rules without measurably improving the FT experience.

I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Why not wait until the debate has completed and then vote? If you can vote at the moment that the debate opens then what is the point in having the debate? Why ask for member's views if you've already voted?

I suggest that there is a 2 week debate period after which time the vote is cast and the motion decided.

it's to insure all TB members are available and up to speed enough to cast a vote. In case some are traveling etc.

Because I don't think that every topic requires a huge amount of debate and doesn't require me to listen to every opinion from every person that posts.

No chance I'd ever vote for this. I'd like to shorten the voting cycle, not increase it.

I really think you are finding problems where there are none. And I'm not thrilled with asking members to consider proposals that have nothing to do with improving FT.

it's to insure all TB members are available and up to speed enough to cast a vote. In case some are traveling etc.



I really think you are finding problems where there are none. And I'm not thrilled with asking members to consider proposals that have nothing to do with improving FT.

I've heard this same thing from a few people now -- it's always in the context of "why worry about this when TB could be working to improve the FT experience?"

Quite frankly, I'm always looking to improve the FT experience. Apparently we disagree on how to go about doing this. That's fine.

I would actually like to see the voting happen in the public forum... once a motion gets seconded, post the poll in this public forum.... and do yoru voting in the open. That way, we see how a vote is going... and stop trying to convince members who have voted... or when a vote has been decided.

Debate can still happen on the private forum, but just have the vote on the public forum.

That would be transparent!

An excellent idea! ^

This is not what I proposed here.

There'd be a post made that would say that the motion has been approved or failed. Everyone would know this just as we would.

You'd still have 14 days and the vote totals and who voted what would not be made public until 9 votes were in or 14 days elapsed.Maybe I'm missing the point but to me, if there is an election, no results are to/should be made known until the time limit for the election has passed (or in other words, until the polls have closed)

My understanding of the proposal is not that the complete results would be posted. Only that it has received enough votes to pass or to fail, nothing more. Today, if 6 yes votes have posted before you vote, you can already see that there have been enough votes for the proposal to pass. So the only difference is all the non-TB FTers will know a little more quickly whether a motion has passed or not.

And unless each of the 6 TB members who voted "yes" all posted that they voted yes and they were the first 6 persons to vote, nobody will be able to tell whether your vote was the 7th or later yes. And since the final tally won't be published until after all members have voted, nobody will be able to tell if you voted "no" before the 6 "yes" votes or after. They will only see what your vote was, not when.What I said above

I would actually like to see the voting happen in the public forum... once a motion gets seconded, post the poll in this public forum.... and do your voting in the open. That way, we see how a vote is going... and stop trying to convince members who have voted... or when a vote has been decided.

Debate can still happen on the private forum, but just have the vote on the public forum.

That would be transparent!I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Why not wait until the debate has completed and then vote? If you can vote at the moment that the debate opens then what is the point in having the debate? Why ask for member's views if you've already voted?

I suggest that there is a 2 week debate period after which time the vote is cast and the motion decided.I actually like this as yes, there are TB members who might have already made up their minds even before a formal motion has been passed, but if there are those "on the fence", having a formal discussion BEFORE a vote might cause one who was thinking of voting one way to actually vote the other way.

I'd actually like to see this but modified so that the discussion actually closes (thread locked) and then the voting begins. Yes, some issues are no-brainers (like the Air Berlin forum [which I voted for as well]) but all subjects for discussion need to be treated equally and to further modify, take the two week public discussion, lock the thread after the 2 week discussion but shorten the voting period down from two weeks to one week or 10 calendar days.

Maybe I'm missing the point but to me, if there is an election, no results are to/should be made known until the time limit for the election has passed (or in other words, until the polls have closed)

What I said above

I actually like this as yes, there are TB members who might have already made up their minds even before a formal motion has been passed, but if there are those "on the fence", having a formal discussion BEFORE a vote might cause one who was thinking of voting one way to actually vote the other way.

I'd actually like to see this but modified so that the discussion actually closes (thread locked) and then the voting begins. Yes, some issues are no-brainers (like the Air Berlin forum [which I voted for as well]) but all subjects for discussion need to be treated equally and to further modify, take the two week public discussion, lock the thread after the 2 week discussion but shorten the voting period down from two weeks to one week or 10 calendar days.

That's 21-24 days then per motion. For some motions, this is analysis paralysis. For others, it's a long period of people going back and forth and saying the same thing many times. Doubtful I'd agree to vote for this, to be honest.

Because I don't think that every topic requires a huge amount of debate and doesn't require me to listen to every opinion from every person that posts

.....

No chance I'd ever vote for this. I'd like to shorten the voting cycle, not increase it.

I agree, some motions require more conversation and debate than others, but it is difficult to formulate a proposal that could identifiy these motions and treat them accordingly.

Rather than dismissing the idea completely, why not suggest ways to make it work for you? For example, the debate period could be reduced to 10 day, with 4 days allowed for voting (keeping the current two week time frame), or 7 days and 7 days. Don't dismiss the concept because the details aren't quite forthcoming at the moment.


I'd actually like to see this but modified so that the discussion actually closes (thread locked) and then the voting begins. Yes, some issues are no-brainers (like the Air Berlin forum [which I voted for as well]) but all subjects for discussion need to be treated equally and to further modify, take the two week public discussion, lock the thread after the 2 week discussion but shorten the voting period down from two weeks to one week or 10 calendar days.

Sounds good to me. I don't see the point of having the debate after some members have voted. The motion should be presented, the arguements put forward and discussed and then the vote should take place. The results can then be published, the details of how each person voted (if that's desirable).


That's 21-24 days then per motion. For some motions, this is analysis paralysis. For others, it's a long period of people going back and forth and saying the same thing many times. Doubtful I'd agree to vote for this, to be honest.

I agree, some motions end up with too much discussion, but limits could be put in place to make the process a bit more efficient, but still achieve the desired outcome.

I think the best way forward is to hold the votes in public as William has suggested. That way posters can decide for themselves whether they care to continue debating an issue or not based on the real-time voting results.

I'l inquire with the CD what the technical options for doing this are.

I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Why not wait until the debate has completed and then vote? If you can vote at the moment that the debate opens then what is the point in having the debate? Why ask for member's views if you've already voted?

I suggest that there is a 2 week debate period after which time the vote is cast and the motion decided.

This is a winner and the most logical approach to new proposals being voted on. It can be fine tuned as also suggested to a shorter debate time (7 days) followed by a shorter voting time (7 days). ^

Frankly if the TB members have an preexisting opinion regarding a new forum being proposed and they are prepared to vote on the issue without first listening to our members and their thoughts there is something wrong with this picture. :td:

This is a winner and the most logical approach to new proposals being voted on. It can be fine tuned as also suggested to a shorter debate time (7 days) followed by a shorter voting time (7 days). ^

Frankly if the TB members have an preexisting opinion regarding a new forum being proposed and they are prepared to vote on the issue without first listening to our members and their thoughts there is something wrong with this picture. :td:

I'm not sure this will get the required (6 votes) support within TB. If someone's willing to write the proposal, though, I'll second it and will make sure it gets a vote. Members deserve to know how TB members feel.

I'm with koko, though. I'd be happy for everyone to see who votes early and who waits until the last minute to submit a vote. Both for better or for worse. Won't change how I vote -- some issues I'll vote on immediately and some, where I have no real opinion or knowledge, I'll lean on other members of TB and on the general members. I guarantee, though, that I won't simply base my votes on polling the members.

At the end of the day, I elect members to represent me... not necessarily to ask me each time how I feel... I trust them to make decisions based on their experiences... there is NO way they could possibly represent every person fully who voted for them each time they cast a vote.

When I was on the Talkboard, I spent many an evening in chat hearing people talk about what was important to them... as well as many private messages and emails with members.

I can say there were many times I voted early because I was going to travel and not have guaranteed access to Flyertalk during the latter part of a vote. I have no problem with current TB members doing that. I worry that a shorter voting window will cause some elected members not be able to vote because of travel or other commitments.

At the end of the day, most motions actually have discussion threads long before an actual motion is placed on the table for a vote; so member opinions are known to our TB representatives.

While I think two weeks is a long time for many votes that are "non controversal", I would also want to ensure our representatives had ample time to cast a vote.

I worry that a shorter voting window will cause some elected members not be able to vote because of travel or other commitments.I don't think that RichMSN's original proposal in this thread or the version he just replied to would make any change in the 2-week voting period.

The only thing I have seen him really discussing is how similar the TB's and general FT member's view of the voting (i.e. see the votes as soon as they are cast) or dis-similar (i.e. TB members can see the votes, but the general FT membership has to wait until the 2 weeks or everyone votes) should be.

So the real question is why should TB members be able to see the ongoing vote tallys, but not everyone else? Why the dichotomy?

I agree, some motions require more conversation and debate than others, but it is difficult to formulate a proposal that could identifiy these motions and treat them accordingly.

Rather than dismissing the idea completely, why not suggest ways to make it work for you? For example, the debate period could be reduced to 10 day, with 4 days allowed for voting (keeping the current two week time frame), or 7 days and 7 days. Don't dismiss the concept because the details aren't quite forthcoming at the moment.......Bolding mine: That would work for me as to me, if a TB member has "already made up their mind", they will vote "as soon as the polls are open" but beyond that, imho, too much time is wasted by having a two week voting period. Set the time frame, have the discussion, close the discussion, open the polls, close the polls, publish the results and then move on to new bidness

I don't think that RichMSN's original proposal in this thread or the version he just replied to would make any change in the 2-week voting period.

The only thing I have seen him really discussing is how similar the TB's and general FT member's view of the voting (i.e. see the votes as soon as they are cast) or dis-similar (i.e. TB members can see the votes, but the general FT membership has to wait until the 2 weeks or everyone votes) should be.

So the real question is why should TB members be able to see the ongoing vote tallys, but not everyone else? Why the dichotomy?

I don't think I should be able to see the tallies or the votes either until it's all over, but that's a limitation of using vBulletin polling. If it's an open poll, we see everything. If it's a secret poll, nobody *ever* sees who voted for what, which obviously wouldn't work, either.

I would like to see the following:

1) A motion is made and seconded.
2) An announcement goes up site-wide informing FTers of the upcoming vote.
3) A thread is established for discussion. But the polls are closed until the discussion thread has been open for 2 days.*
4) After 2 days of discussion voting begins and lasts until all TB members have voted or 12 days has elapsed.


I'd like to see the voting live but if that isn't possible I agree that it would be a kindness to let the public know that a vote has been decided so further debate will not change the outcome of the vote. The official result needn't be broadcast until voting has come to an end since each TB member should be able to vote should he or she wish.

*I picked 2 days because it gives people the opportunity to feel like they have a say in the outcome but it's not such a long time that it drags out the vote for weeks or significantly reduces the amount of time a TB member gets to vote (afterall TB members have day jobs, families, and other priorities).

I don't think I should be able to see the tallies or the votes either until it's all over, but that's a limitation of using vBulletin polling.And I agree with that, which is why in my first reply in this thread, I mentioned that my first thought was that this could cause issues if one TB member sees all the other's votes who has voted before them. But since that is the norm, I don't see why the rest of the FT membership should't also be able to see the voting as it is happening either.

2 weeks voting period max is acceptable.. gives TB members enough time to weigh and discuss decisions..

But if a majority of voting is reached, then the motion should be indicated passed..