TalkBoard Topics - Should the TalkBoard votes be held in public?

Currently the TalkBoard votes on motions using FT's poll feature in the private TB forum.

Here is what it looks like:
http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx92/mattwald/tbvote.png

While a vote is live, as TB members vote, we can see in real time the numbers go up. By clicking on the number (9 under yes in this case), we can see which TB members voted Yes, No or Abstain both while the vote is underway and when it is complete.

I think that it would make sense to do TB voting in this forum instead of the private forum. That way all posters could see, in real time, how their TB members are voting during the 2 week voting period.

It would also let posters know in real time when a decision has been made by the TB (because a motion gets 6 for or 4 against). This would avoid having posters waste their time by debating an issue that has been settled but not yet announced

It will also allow posters to know whether their TB members typically vote right away, wait until the end of the voting period to vote or whatever.

Basically, it's greater transparency to the real-time voting by the TB.

I asked Carol and IB:


wharvey had an excellent suggestion in the public TB forum:

imho, this is a brilliant suggestion.

So my question for Carol and the IB folks is:

Is it technically feasible to

- hold a poll in the public TB forum that only TB members can vote on?

- hold a poll in the TB Town Hall forum that only TB members can vote on (by giving us edit authority but all others read-only access or something?)?

- hold a poll in a new TB votes sub-forum that only TB members can vote on but that all posters can see?

The answer was Yes.... Yes.... And Yes.

Apparently there isn't a problem with only letting certain usergroups vote and letting other usergroups view the polls. The tricky part would be allowing users to see who voted for what.

So it might be that posters could only view the numbers and not click on the numbers to get the names of who voted how while voting was in progress.

Anyway, I'm thinking it'd be great to give all posters real-time access to this information.

But I'd love input from posters and other TB members, both current and former!

I would support this idea. I'm all for efficiency, so identifying when a measure has passed or been defeated would be a big time savings in terms of ongoing debate.

I'm all for it, as it gives "instant" gratification, in that everyone could see the vote, rather than waiting until the end of the voting period or until everyone on TB has voted to see the results. If everyone could see who has and has not voted, members would be able to determine if there are TB members who routinely wait until the very end of voting to cast their ballot, either in an attempt to block a measure as long as possible, because they enjoy making everyone wait, or because they want to wait until everyone was able to "have a say" in the comments welcome thread. It would allow those who are passionate about an issue to know when the debate effectively becomes useless.

^ I like the idea and think it would be a very nice step toward transparency between the TB and the general FT membership. ^

After much thought, I'm convinced. I'd support this as well.

(Proactive strike here: And for anyone who thinks any of koko's post violates either the TOS or TB Guidelines, I completely and vehemently disagree.)

(Proactive strike here: And for anyone who thinks any of koko's post violates either the TOS or TB Guidelines, I completely and vehemently disagree.)
lol, I suspect some may be setting up a pyre anyway...:D ;)

But seriously, I am curious to hear some potential down-sides to this proposal. I'm having a hard time coming up with any myself.

It works well for the US Congress, after all....

http://images.politico.com/global/news/101202_rangelvote_cspan_328.jpg

(and yes, that example was purposefully chosen! :D)

Opposed. This could incentivize late voters to vote along with the majority if a vote has already been decided. I want to know that a TB's vote represents their own feelings, and not a fear that they will appear to be the odd man out on a vote.

lol, I suspect some may be setting up a pyre anyway...:D ;)

But seriously, I am curious to hear some potential down-sides to this proposal. I'm having a hard time coming up with any myself.

It works well for the US Congress, after all....

http://images.politico.com/global/news/101202_rangelvote_cspan_328.jpg

(and yes, that example was purposefully chosen! :D)

Bravo! :D

(Although in a football game I would have to issue a 15-yard penalty for taunting.)

Opposed. This could incentivize late voters to vote along with the majority if a vote has already been decided. I want to know that a TB's vote represents their own feelings, and not a fear that they will appear to be the odd man out on a vote.

But that can happen when the voting is done in the private forum too. The vote results and roll call are announced after 2 weeks or all TB members vote. So if I am a late voter in the private forum, I might vote yes just to not appear to be the odd man out once the results are posted.

So the only difference is, if a TB member voted late you could watch it happen live and draw your own conclusion from that. It's more information for posters.

But that can happen when the voting is done in the private forum too. The vote results and roll call are announced after 2 weeks or all TB members vote. So if I am a late voter in the private forum, I might vote yes just to not appear to be the odd man out once the results are posted.

So the only difference is, if a TB member voted late you could watch it happen live and draw your own conclusion from that. It's more information for posters.

Voting time or order are not revealed currently. TB members should not be judged on when they vote, as long as they vote within the required time period. This isn't a race.

I think it would be a good idea.

I have to ask, how does it work? IF you put the poll in an open forum, wouldn't anyone reading the forum be able to vote? Does the software allow the polls open to certain people? That makes sense as to why its in the private tb forum, so only the TB can see it..

If the software allows for polls to be placed anywhere and only a certain few can access it, then I'm for the openness of the talk board.

lol, I suspect some may be setting up a pyre anyway...:D ;)

But seriously, I am curious to hear some potential down-sides to this proposal. I'm having a hard time coming up with any myself.

It works well for the US Congress, after all....

http://images.politico.com/global/news/101202_rangelvote_cspan_328.jpg

(and yes, that example was purposefully chosen! :D)While your example is good, I see two issues with it.....


This shows simply a yes or no vote and the house member names are not used nor not made public until either the vote is final or a roll call vote is needed

The discussion period has been closed and then the voting is being done as opposed to here where the discussion is still going on while the vote is happeneing


For F/t, I'd like to see the discussion period closed, then have the voting period start with the results shown in real time (and if possible, simply a yes/no/abstain without names until the vote is final/voting period has ended)

While your example is good, I see two issues with it.....


This shows simply a yes or no vote and the house member names are not used nor not made public until either the vote is final or a roll call vote is needed

The discussion period has been closed and then the voting is being done as opposed to here where the discussion is still going on while the vote is happeneing


For F/t, I'd like to see the discussion period closed, then have the voting period start with the results shown in real time (and if possible, simply a yes/no/abstain without names until the vote is final/voting period has ended)

Me too, but if that isn't possible, I prefer koko's approach to the status quo.

After much thought, I'm convinced. I'd support this as well.

(Proactive strike here: And for anyone who thinks any of koko's post violates either the TOS or TB Guidelines, I completely and vehemently disagree.)
Of course it does. No question.

I'm more concerned though that he hasn't bothered to turn off the facebook linking yet...

I can't see any downside to this, and I can see some upsides.

Yet another good idea! More transparency is a good thing.

Of course it does. No question.

I'm more concerned though that he hasn't bothered to turn off the facebook linking yet...

I can't see any downside to this, and I can see some upsides.

As you can see from all the ads and clutter, I have no idea how any of the guts of FT work...or how to manipulate them to 'improve' my viewing. :( I'm the kind of poster that only IB could love...I even click on the ads from time to time!!! :o

And if my post/suggestion results in a censure or dismissal from the TB, so be it. :)

Of course it does. No question.

An image showing the vBulletin rendering for an already completed vote (whose results are public) is not disseminating any privileged information. At worst, it's shining a little much-needed light into the TB processes as well as the limitations of vBulletin.

I was stunned (*stunned*!) to see I could see how everyone voted before I even cast my ballot for the first TB motion I voted on. Votes shouldn't work that way. Not even TB members should see how the others voted until the vote is over.

But since we can, everyone else should be able to as well.

While your example is good, I see two issues with it.....


This shows simply a yes or no vote and the house member names are not used nor not made public until either the vote is final or a roll call vote is needed

The discussion period has been closed and then the voting is being done as opposed to here where the discussion is still going on while the vote is happeneing


For F/t, I'd like to see the discussion period closed, then have the voting period start with the results shown in real time (and if possible, simply a yes/no/abstain without names until the vote is final/voting period has ended)
That could work. Have a discussion period of 7 days, then limit voting to 7 days, with the discussion thread being locked at the start of voting?

An image showing the vBulletin rendering for an already completed vote (whose results are public) is not disseminating any privileged information. At worst, it's shining a little much-needed light into the TB processes as well as the limitations of vBulletin.

I was stunned (*stunned*!) to see I could see how everyone voted before I even cast my ballot for the first TB motion I voted on. Votes shouldn't work that way. Not even TB members should see how the others voted until the vote is over.

But since we can, everyone else should be able to as well.
You need to review the TB rules urgently.

The rule in question is
No TalkBoard member shall present information, arguments or words of another TalkBoard member or the FlyerTalk Host from the private TalkBoard forum anywhere on FlyerTalk unless they have the express consent of that TalkBoard member or the FlyerTalk Host to do so

How is taking a screen shot of a thread not in the public forum, which includes the post of a fellow TB member not presenting information or words of another TB member?

Did Koko seek Carol or Spiff's consent? If he did not, then it's a breach of the rules. Now, I happen to think this is nowhere near as malicious as some other breaches I am aware of. The information is nothing really interesting or exciting. That does not stop it being a rule breach.

While you might agree with what koko is trying to do - that does not stop it being a rule breach. The rule is pretty black and white and inescapable. Don't try and rewrite it in your mind because you don't want it to apply.

You need to review the TB rules urgently.

The rule in question is


How is taking a screen shot of a thread not in the public forum, which includes the post of a fellow TB member not presenting information or words of another TB member?

Did Koko seek Carol or Spiff's consent? If he did not, then it's a breach of the rules. Now, I happen to think this is nowhere near as malicious as some other breaches I am aware of. The information is nothing really interesting or exciting. That does not stop it being a rule breach.

While you might agree with what koko is trying to do - that does not stop it being a rule breach. The rule is pretty black and white and inescapable. Don't try and rewrite it in your mind because you don't want it to apply.

That's downright laughable. What's sad is that you aren't joking.

I like this proposal. ^


I'm more concerned though that he hasn't bothered to turn off the facebook linking yet...
If you use Firefox and AdBlock Plus, you will like this (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13733133-post60.html).

You need to review the TB rules urgently.

The rule in question is


How is taking a screen shot of a thread not in the public forum, which includes the post of a fellow TB member not presenting information or words of another TB member?

Did Koko seek Carol or Spiff's consent? If he did not, then it's a breach of the rules. Now, I happen to think this is nowhere near as malicious as some other breaches I am aware of. The information is nothing really interesting or exciting. That does not stop it being a rule breach.

While you might agree with what koko is trying to do - that does not stop it being a rule breach. The rule is pretty black and white and inescapable. Don't try and rewrite it in your mind because you don't want it to apply.

If all the rules on here are enforced, half the people won't be allowed anymore.

lol, I suspect some may be setting up a pyre anyway...:D ;)

But seriously, I am curious to hear some potential down-sides to this proposal. I'm having a hard time coming up with any myself.

It works well for the US Congress, after all....

http://images.politico.com/global/news/101202_rangelvote_cspan_328.jpg

(and yes, that example was purposefully chosen! :D)

Divided government works pretty well in the U.S. too, but we seem to have a bit of a problem with it here on FT.

But to be responsive to the question, every form of transparency, including this one, is a good thing.

Divided government works pretty well in the U.S. too, but we seem to have a bit of a problem with it here on FT.

But to be responsive to the question, every form of transparency, including this one, is a good thing.

Well, said, Brian. ^

That's downright laughable. What's sad is that you aren't joking.
No, it's not laughable - those are the rules you agreed to abide by when you chose to stand as a TB member.

That you should try and wriggle out of them is very worrying and very disappointing. If you cannot abide by the rules of being a TB member - and we agonised over them for months to ensure that everyone was playing by the same rules - then I suggest you step down.

But the rule on private forum privacy is pretty clear, and pretty fundamental. I'm surprised that someone would try to argue its interpretable in any other way, and it also just shows how wise it is to keep any decisions related to moderation well away to someone who would try to wriggle out of a rule when it doesn't suit them :(

Divided government works pretty well in the U.S. too, but we seem to have a bit of a problem with it here on FT.

But to be responsive to the question, every form of transparency, including this one, is a good thing. I wasn't aware that FT had a government? Perhaps you are confusing an IBB with a nation state? :confused:

No, it's not laughable - those are the rules you agreed to abide by when you chose to stand as a TB member.

That you should try and wriggle out of them is very worrying and very disappointing. If you cannot abide by the rules of being a TB member - and we agonised over them for months to ensure that everyone was playing by the same rules - then I suggest you step down.

But the rule on private forum privacy is pretty clear, and pretty fundamental. I'm surprised that someone would try to argue its interpretable in any other way, and it also just shows how wise it is to keep any decisions related to moderation well away to someone who would try to wriggle out of a rule when it doesn't suit them :(

Suggest all you want. That's all you can do.

I'm familiar with rules. I'm a 25-year sports official. What I've learned in that time is that rules have to be applied with a certain amount of common sense (keeping in mind the spirit and intent of the rule) and very little is really black and white.

This has nothing to do with moderation, either.

No, it's not laughable - those are the rules you agreed to abide by when you chose to stand as a TB member.

That you should try and wriggle out of them is very worrying and very disappointing. If you cannot abide by the rules of being a TB member - and we agonised over them for months to ensure that everyone was playing by the same rules - then I suggest you step down.

But the rule on private forum privacy is pretty clear, and pretty fundamental. I'm surprised that someone would try to argue its interpretable in any other way, and it also just shows how wise it is to keep any decisions related to moderation well away to someone who would try to wriggle out of a rule when it doesn't suit them :(

I did get a complaint similar to yours today. Here is my response:


None of the information I posted in the thread you link to is posted exclusively in the private forum. It is posted on the public TB forum and in the TB Townhall forum as well (the Texas motion, vote, etc).

Is your objection to the picture? Again, it does not reveal anything not already posted all over FT.

As for my question and the answer, I did not quote [someone on the private TB forum], simply relayed the pertinent general answer.

In any case, if you feel the need to initiate a censure or removal process on me based on my post(s), said process is contained in section F of the TB Guidelines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard/885320-talkboard-guidelines.html). @:-)

I stand by William's idea and my presentation of it. If that gets me booted from the TalkBoard, so be it.

Honestly, though, if that's what mods do, nit pick to find technical violations to prosecute someone who is trying to help improve FlyerTalk, it would be wise to keep any decisions about moderation well away from them. :p

I did get a complaint similar to yours today. Here is my response:



I stand by William's idea and my presentation of it. If that gets me booted from the TalkBoard, so be it.

Honestly, though, if that's what mods do, nit pick to find technical violations to prosecute someone who is trying to help improve FlyerTalk, it would be wise to keep any decisions about moderation well away from them. :p

I am still not regretting my vote for you in the last election!

^ :D

I think it's very alarming that

a) TB members cannot be trusted to uphold their own rules
b) TB members will come up with all kinds of justifications to justify their rule breaches.

Koko - did you ask Spiff for his permission to copy a picture of his post into this forum? Did you ask Carol's permission? If you did not, then you are in clear breach of the rules. You may not quote what he says in private without his or Carol's permission. End of. You have quoted it. You have broken TB privacy rules. It doesn't matter what is said - it's the fact you did it.

If you sought his permission, I'll be happy to apologise and agree this was not a rule breach. But absent you seeking permission, this is a rule breach.

This has nothing to do with moderation, either. It's the attitude towards rules. And that does have a very clear corollary towards moderation. If TB members cannot police themselves to stay within the rules by which they have to abide, they have no right to believe they are fit to have any say in moderator decisions. Why should I take direction as a moderator from someone who shows such scant disregard for the rules themselves? :confused:

And it's really sad. This rule-breaking - and your refusal to acknowledge that there has been a clear rule breach - is derailing discussion on what should have been a good idea.

I have to say I love this suggestion... a brilliant sugguestion made by that wharvey guy.... :)

Seriously, I believe this allows more transparency... and provides us general members more information on how we are being represented.

And it's really sad. This rule-breaking - and your refusal to acknowledge that there has been a clear rule breach - is derailing discussion on what should have been a good idea.

The only one derailing the discussion is you.

Would you kindly focus on the issue at hand so I am not forced to report your off topic posts to the forum moderator. Because by failing to stick to the topic you are committing a TOS violation. You know, the rules that you are sworn to uphold as a moderator. If you cannot police yourself to stay within the rules by which you have to abide, we have no right to believe you are fit to have any say in moderator decisions. Why should I take moderation from someone who shows such scant disregard [sic?] for the rules themselves?

See, nit-pickery is a double edged sword. @:-) :p

Seriously, though, if you want to talk about kicking me off the TB or moderation or whatever, start a new thread.

I think some people are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The only insider info I've learned is that the private forums have banner ads. :p

EDIT: Sorry, I just saw that kokonutz posted the same time as me, asking to keep this thread on topic.

You need to review the TB rules urgently.

Did Koko seek Carol or Spiff's consent? If he did not, then it's a breach of the rules. Now, I happen to think this is nowhere near as malicious as some other breaches I am aware of. The information is nothing really interesting or exciting. That does not stop it being a rule breach.

So, not as malicious as some but still malicious. Are you joking? :eek:

While you might agree with what koko is trying to do - that does not stop it being a rule breach. The rule is pretty black and white and inescapable. Don't try and rewrite it in your mind because you don't want it to apply.

You seem to need an urgent lesson in the difference between 'the spirit of the law' and 'the letter of the law'. Sheesh.

Honestly, though, if that's what mods do, nit pick to find technical violations to prosecute someone who is trying to help improve FlyerTalk, it would be wise to keep any decisions about moderation well away from them. :p

Such a perfect description of what is happening here. And makes me question the motivation behind it.

This rule-breaking - and your refusal to acknowledge that there has been a clear rule breach - is derailing discussion on what should have been a good idea.

The derailing is all you.

Great idea, btw. ^

The only one derailing the discussion is you.

Would you kindly focus on the issue at hand so I am not forced to report your off topic posts to the forum moderator. Because by failing to stick to the topic you are committing a TOS violation. You know, the rules that you are sworn to uphold as a moderator. If you cannot police yourself to stay within the rules by which you have to abide, we have no right to believe you are fit to have any say in moderator decisions. Why should I take moderation from someone who shows such scant disregard [sic?] for the rules themselves?

See, nit-pickery is a double edged sword. @:-) :p

Seriously, though, if you want to talk about kicking me off the TB or moderation or whatever, start a new thread.

Brilliant! :D

I think it's very alarming that

a) TB members cannot be trusted to uphold their own rules
b) TB members will come up with all kinds of justifications to justify their rule breaches.

Koko - did you ask Spiff for his permission to copy a picture of his post into this forum? Did you ask Carol's permission? If you did not, then you are in clear breach of the rules. You may not quote what he says in private without his or Carol's permission. End of. You have quoted it. You have broken TB privacy rules. It doesn't matter what is said - it's the fact you did it.

If you sought his permission, I'll be happy to apologise and agree this was not a rule breach. But absent you seeking permission, this is a rule breach.

It's the attitude towards rules. And that does have a very clear corollary towards moderation. If TB members cannot police themselves to stay within the rules by which they have to abide, they have no right to believe they are fit to have any say in moderator decisions. Why should I take direction as a moderator from someone who shows such scant disregard for the rules themselves? :confused:

And it's really sad. This rule-breaking - and your refusal to acknowledge that there has been a clear rule breach - is derailing discussion on what should have been a good idea.

How is this on topic? Should this not be a PM *if* it is a sincere belief rather than attempt at intimidation?

Should not a moderator, granted authority to enforce these rules in others, not adhere to a higher standard themselves?

it seems to me the only reason to have private TB forum would be if different TOS applies

(until such a time that TB is voting on issues more "emotionally" complex than creating forums etc)

maybe im missing something, but Spiff didnt "say" anything in pictured post? its TB "legalese" that was subsequently posted publicly verbatim, all according to standard operating procedure.

ah, one thing is that it was posted 1 day before this thread was created publicly >
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1293682-comments-welcome-voting-underway-create-texas-forum.html

It's the attitude towards rules. And that does have a very clear corollary towards moderation. If TB members cannot police themselves to stay within the rules by which they have to abide, they have no right to believe they are fit to have any say in moderator decisions. Why should I take direction as a moderator from someone who shows such scant disregard for the rules themselves? :confused:

And it's really sad. This rule-breaking - and your refusal to acknowledge that there has been a clear rule breach - is derailing discussion on what should have been a good idea.

To be honest, I have more concern about a moderator who has no concept of the spirit and intent of rules and think that the rules are a "black and white" issue. So should general members of FT.

So with that said, let's stay on topic, shall we?

it seems to me the only reason to have private TB forum would be if different TOS applies

(until such a time that TB is voting on issues more "emotionally" complex than creating forums etc)

maybe im missing something, but Spiff didnt "say" anything in pictured post? its TB "legalese" that was subsequently posted publicly verbatim, all according to standard operating procedure.

ah, one thing is that it was posted 1 day before this thread was created publicly >
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1293682-comments-welcome-voting-underway-create-texas-forum.html

But it was posted after the fact. Nothing was divulged ahead of time. Spiff was merely performing his duties and nothing he said there was ultimately privileged.

Good idea !^

But it was posted after the fact. Nothing was divulged ahead of time. Spiff was merely performing his duties and nothing he said there was ultimately privileged.
Please explain where the concept of 'privilege' is included in the TB rules? You seem to be adding in a new concept. Everything another TB member says in the private forum - no matter how mundane - can only be revealed on the public forum by that TB member. There are no exceptions in the TB rules - I posted what it said earlier on this thread - no exceptions. As soon as one TB member reveals what another TB member says - no matter how mundane - without their permission - that is a breach of the TB rule.

BTW - this post shows most clearly I am not the only one derailing. Afterall, I first responded to a comment by RichMSN :rolleyes:

Strange, how the anti-moderation crowd cannot see a problem with the rules being broken. Perhaps we start to see to the heart of their problem with moderation? :(

Jen, I've had high regard for a lot of things that you've posted over the years, and while I don't always agree, I've respected your opinion.

That said, if Spiff or anyone else (including you) had a problem with what was posted in post #1 of this thread, then the procedure is to do what any other FT member would do and hit the red triangle to report it or PM the proper authorities. It would then be Carol's or Craig's job to determine whether there was a breach of the TB rules and take care of it. I appreciate that you think you are trying to be the TB police here, but even though you are a moderator, you are not in charge of this forum or any other except for CBuzz and Virgin.

And yes, I would admit that RichMSN was the first to mention it, so you felt compelled to respond. But you of all people should know what the protocol is to report things that you don't think are right. Airing them out in the open as you have is NOT the way to do it.

So ANYWAY....back to the original post's topic....

I have come to learn that it may be the case that the poll technology can only allow posters to view the vote counts live. That only admins can click on the number to see who voted how. If that's the case, then perhaps the only way to have full voting information live is to do the voting via posts in a separate voting sub-forum or perhaps in the town hall forum.

So until we can verify how the poll feature would work in real life, I guess the most productive use of this thread is to talk about what is important:

- Seeing votes tallied live

- Seeing who votes how live

- Both

- Neither, keeping the votes and roll call secret until voting ends (either after 2 weeks or after all 9 TB members vote, whichever comes first).

- Something else?

And, again, if you want to talk about me or moderation or TB guidelines (whether it is to pillory me or defend me), please, PM me or Carol or Craig or start a new thread.

Thank you Koko for bringing this back to the topic of: Should the TalkBoard votes be held in public?

- Seeing votes tallied live

- Seeing who votes how live

- Both

- Neither, keeping the votes and roll call secret until voting ends (either after 2 weeks or after all 9 TB members vote, whichever comes first).

- Something else?Personally, I agree with RichMSN, the best alternative is probably to have no votes seeable by anyone (TB members or general FT membership.) But if that isn't possible (i.e. TB members will continue to see ongoing voting results), then the 2nd best alternative is for everyone to see the ongoing voting results (both TB members and the general FT membership.)

Personally, I agree with RichMSN, the best alternative is probably to have no votes seeable by anyone (TB members or general FT membership.) But if that isn't possible (i.e. TB members will continue to see ongoing voting results), then the 2nd best alternative is for everyone to see the ongoing voting results (both TB members and the general FT membership.)

Again, I was stunned when I went in and saw who's voted and who's not voted. Problem is that we need a mechanism that divulges the vote after it's completed and I'm not sure vBulletin provides for that. I suppose we could go off FT to conduct the vote, maybe via SurveyMonkey or the like, but I'm not sure how much of an administrative nightmare that would be.

It makes for an interesting dynamic when a slam-dunk motion sits for 14 straight days because one TB member chooses not to vote until the last minute (or vote at all) and members continue to lobby for the motion. Even though the motion is, well, decided.

It's really not fair to that member that all of TB knows who that member is. If we could fix that and make it so nobody knows anything until the vote is completed, I'd actually be much happier.

Using the analogy of the US Congress voting, I'd be happy to have a debate period followed by a voting period as long as *all* debate on the motion ceased once we started voting and we handled all of this in a timely fashion. Personally, I think 5 days for debate and 5 days for voting is enough -- we cut 4 days off the whole process and still give people enough time to comment and enough time for TB to vote (considering that TB members will know well in advance the voting period).

If we could fix that and make it so nobody knows anything until the vote is completed, I'd actually be much happier.

Votes could be set up as secret ballot, as is done for internal election of TalkBoard officers. That would make the TB less effective, IMHO.

One time about a year ago a vote was accidentally set up as secret ballot. The issue was non-controversial, but 3 members ended up missing the vote. Which reminds me of the other problem: TB Guidelines for participation require a count of consecutive missed votes. You can't accomplish that with secret ballots, since there's no way to tell who didn't vote.

We need to be careful about changing established and working systems. (http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2004/05/chesterton_14.html)

Votes could be set up as secret ballot, as is done for internal election of TalkBoard officers. That would make the TB less effective, IMHO.

One time about a year ago a vote was accidentally set up as secret ballot. The issue was non-controversial, but 3 members ended up missing the vote. Which reminds me of the other problem: TB Guidelines for participation require a count of consecutive missed votes. You can't accomplish that with secret ballots, since there's no way to tell who didn't vote.

We need to be careful about changing established and working systems. (http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2004/05/chesterton_14.html)
Perhaps, at a minimum, the TB VP could, once a day, post an update of voting on the comments thread? That wouldn't be perfect, and isn't really what I think should happen, but if due to software limitations, it would require maintaining the status quo, conducting votes off-site, or keeping everything hidden until the last vote is cast, perhaps the TB VP option is a decent stop-gap. It doesn't change too much.

As I stated in the other thread that Rich started re: the topic, I think this is a problem in search of a solution & really getting into micro-managing the voting process.

The voting process is votes are open for 2 weeks or until all TB members have voted. This allows time for FTers to provide their input on what's being voted on, provides an opportunity for TB members to consider the input, do their own homework, and it also allocates some time for those who might be traveling and/or offline who might not be able to vote if the vote timeframe was shortened.

Sometimes votes end sooner; sometimes they go the full two weeks. Sometimes the motion will pass or fail based on numbers before all have voted, but to say that FTers should still not be allowed to provide input does a disservice to both those FTers and to those TB members who haven't decided & want to vote what they think is right, based on FT input, their homework and their judgment.

The FT world will NOT fall apart if a vote occasionally goes the full 2 weeks & FTers have to wait a few days to find out if the motion passed/didn't pass, and who voted which way.

I'd rather we focussed on other things that impacts FTers, their overall experience with FT, and ways to enhance the experience or provide areas that would be of interest to those with travel interests who come to FT.

Cheers.

As I stated in the other thread that Rich started re: the topic, I think this is a problem in search of a solution & really getting into micro-managing the voting process.

The voting process is votes are open for 2 weeks or until all TB members have voted. This allows time for FTers to provide their input on what's being voted on, provides an opportunity for TB members to consider the input, do their own homework, and it also allocates some time for those who might be traveling and/or offline who might not be able to vote if the vote timeframe was shortened.

Sometimes votes end sooner; sometimes they go the full two weeks. Sometimes the motion will pass or fail based on numbers before all have voted, but to say that FTers should still not be allowed to provide input does a disservice to both those FTers and to those TB members who haven't decided & want to vote what they think is right, based on FT input, their homework and their judgment.

The FT world will NOT fall apart if a vote occasionally goes the full 2 weeks & FTers have to wait a few days to find out if the motion passed/didn't pass, and who voted which way.

I'd rather we focussed on other things that impacts FTers, their overall experience with FT, and ways to enhance the experience or provide areas that would be of interest to those with travel interests who come to FT.

Cheers.
That's a fair point. My counter-point is that when TB started it operated under a completely opaque process. Since then the TB has incrementally opened up its process to posters so they can see what it does and how.

This proposal continues that imho very positive trend of increased transparency making TB members more and more accountable to the posters.

The FT world will NOT fall apart if a vote occasionally goes the full 2 weeks & FTers have to wait a few days to find out if the motion passed/didn't pass, and who voted which way.

Concur. TB motions while important are not so time sensitive that the general membership cannot withstand a 14-day voting interval. Approved proposals are, after all, only recommendations to a final arbiter, not emergency injunctions.

Don't take that to mean I'm against transparency, however. In principle I'm not. If the technical limitations to showing real time vote tallies can be overcome, great. It doesn't seem a pressing issue though.

Jen, I've had high regard for a lot of things that you've posted over the years, and while I don't always agree, I've respected your opinion.

That said, if Spiff or anyone else (including you) had a problem with what was posted in post #1 of this thread, then the procedure is to do what any other FT member would do and hit the red triangle to report it or PM the proper authorities. It would then be Carol's or Craig's job to determine whether there was a breach of the TB rules and take care of it. I appreciate that you think you are trying to be the TB police here, but even though you are a moderator, you are not in charge of this forum or any other except for CBuzz and Virgin.

And yes, I would admit that RichMSN was the first to mention it, so you felt compelled to respond. But you of all people should know what the protocol is to report things that you don't think are right. Airing them out in the open as you have is NOT the way to do it. An excellent post !

I have to say I love this suggestion... a brilliant sugguestion made by that wharvey guy.... :)

Seriously, I believe this allows more transparency... and provides us general members more information on how we are being represented.

I too favor this suggestion. I see no strong argument against it.

Concur. TB motions while important are not so time sensitive that the general membership cannot withstand a 14-day voting interval. Approved proposals are, after all, only recommendations to a final arbiter, not emergency injunctions.

Don't take that to mean I'm against transparency, however. In principle I'm not. If the technical limitations to showing real time vote tallies can be overcome, great. It doesn't seem a pressing issue though.

Agree.

I respect the desire behind this proposal, but "offline" (used in the sense of "non-real-time") discussion fora such as this need to be treated differently than "online" (used in the sense of "real-time") meetings.

In an environment where many members are traveling or otherwise unable to access FlyerTalk constantly, holding people to a standard of "online" vote tallying is not positive. The TalkBoard has an established voting timeframe that was set in order to give members the ability to complete their work in the midst of often busy real-life schedules or lack of Internet access while traveling. Why shouldn't that be honored?

Agree.

I respect the desire behind this proposal, but "offline" (used in the sense of "non-real-time") discussion fora such as this need to be treated differently than "online" (used in the sense of "real-time") meetings.

In an environment where many members are traveling or otherwise unable to access FlyerTalk constantly, holding people to a standard of "online" vote tallying is not positive. The TalkBoard has an established voting timeframe that was set in order to give members the ability to complete their work in the midst of often busy real-life schedules or lack of Internet access while traveling. Why shouldn't that be honored?

If it can be set up to allow the TB members to vote in an open forum by masking who has voted yes or no while keeping with 2 weeks voting process, is something I would go for. Plus allowing it open for the two week would give those TB members who are traveling the opportunity to vote.