TalkBoard Topics - Discussion/Suggestion: TalkBoard motion pass/fail results reported in real-time?

There has been discussion on the "Comments Welcome: Voting Underway-Non-counting of Posts in a Games Forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1303909-comments-welcome-voting-underway-non-counting-posts-games-forum.html)" thread that it would be nice to know when a motion has 6 yes or no votes. Rather than sidetrack that thread more than it already has been, I thought we should start a new discussion thread.

This would allow members to know that a motion has passed or failed to pass in real-time, rather than speculating on its status until the vote closes. It would reduce heated debate, and while no action could really be taken on the implementation of the motion if it passed, it would at least allow everyone to know the status, rather than keeping them in the dark for up to 2 weeks.

Personally, I love this idea, and I think in this world of instant/on-demand entertainment, I think it would appeal to a majority of FT members to know the status of a vote as soon as it's "in the bag" (or as close to it as humanly possible by the person/persons responsible for reporting the results).

I agree with comments in the other thread that how TB members voted or which members have/haven't voted should NOT be posted until all nine votes are cast or the time deadline has passed.

This thread had evolved to the point where there were a number of options on the table. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1302735-your-thoughts-please-2-week-voting-period-tb-motions.html)


Announce when 6 yes or 4 no votes are achieved.

Have the TB vote live in public.

Have open debate but no voting then a shortened voting period.

Keep the status quo.



I am a proponent of some type of reform. I think it wastes posters time to be kept in the dark that an issue has been settled, leading them to continue to debate a matter that is, in reality, closed.

While this has not been much of an issue in the past, it appears that it may be a problem this session so we may as well fix it once and for all.

I favor for voting in public because I think the more transparency we have the better but am open to any of those options other than the status quo.

I'd say to start with something that might actually have a chance of passing, and I don't know that voting in public would. So, if I were drafting a TalkBoard motion, it would probably read something like, "During all TalkBoard votes, once there are 6 pass votes or 4 fail votes, this information will be posted to the discussion thread."

My preference is to keep the status quo. At 14 days, the voting window is short anyway.

I appreciate there may be situations where a TB member might need the full time slot to consult with the membership before finally decided which way to vote, irrespective of votes already cast by other TBers.

Members may be reticent to engage if they sense a fate accompli.

I posted the following today in the private TalkBoard forum:

Here's a draft for comments. I'm looking for both technical (wording) comments and substantive (is this a good idea or not) comments.

Section 3.C.i.e. of the TalkBoard Guidelines is modified as follows (added sentence in bold):

e. The TalkBoard forum is private. 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. TalkBoard members are free to present their own arguments and words from the private TalkBoard forum in the public forums as they see fit and the Terms of Service and these guidelines allows. In addition, TalkBoard members are free to disclose publicly the fact that an active proposal has received sufficient Yes votes for approval or sufficient No votes that approval is not possible.

This seems like a minor change that improves the current situation. My only hesitation is that voting on such a minor matter feeds the perception (which may be accurate!) that the TalkBoard mostly focuses on itself. :o

I would be for announcing the pass/fail of a montion once the required votes are made. As others have said, there is no need to keep people in the dark and trying to make persuasive arguments the deal is already done.


14 days is fine as it is, and I really don't need to see it in real time.

It's just getting it off the table and settled when the last vote(s) really wouldn't make a difference.

...In addition, TalkBoard members are free to disclose publicly the fact that an active proposal has received sufficient Yes votes for approval or sufficient No votes that approval is not possible... Personally, I like the notion of everyone being notified once the required votes have been reached for either passing or failing.

My only suggestion is that instead of just opening it up to any TB member, it might make more sense to have the VP make the annoucement. That might make things run a little more smoothly.

As I posted in the private forum:

"I'm mixed on this.

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."

Based on the above & the underlining above I'm against it.

Having said that, if a TB member is dragging out voting due to snit fit/teddy-pram thing (something that didn't happen in the first year I served), that would lead me to support this.

I am against shortening the 2-week voting period itself for the reasons italicized above.

As I said I'm mixed on this one. Not dead-set against; not gung-ho for.

hhoope01 makes a good point about who does the announcing, though, and it would be consistent with the VP doing the final announcing.

Cheers.

I would be for announcing the pass/fail of a montion once the required votes are made. As others have said, there is no need to keep people in the dark and trying to make persuasive arguments the deal is already done.


14 days is fine as it is, and I really don't need to see it in real time.

It's just getting it off the table and settled when the last vote(s) really wouldn't make a difference.

Yup. Stunning. I agree again.

I need to get myself checked out. You, as well as Kipper, keep on agreeing with me.

I must be ill :D

There has been discussion on the "Comments Welcome: Voting Underway-Non-counting of Posts in a Games Forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1303909-comments-welcome-voting-underway-non-counting-posts-games-forum.html)" thread that it would be nice to know when a motion has 6 yes or no votes. Rather than sidetrack that thread more than it already has been, I thought we should start a new discussion thread.

This would allow members to know that a motion has passed or failed to pass in real-time, rather than speculating on its status until the vote closes. It would reduce heated debate, and while no action could really be taken on the implementation of the motion if it passed, it would at least allow everyone to know the status, rather than keeping them in the dark for up to 2 weeks.Actually, I'd rather see public discussion held, then closed and then have the vote take place as this would further eliminate the heated debate-and then if a motion passes or fails with the required number of votes before the voting period has ended, you could then post the results.

Public discussion opens
Public discussion held
Public discussion closes
Vote held
Vote results published

Yes, this might/could/would add time to the whole process but imho, it's a better way to go

Personally, I like the notion of everyone being notified once the required votes have been reached for either passing or failing.

My only suggestion is that instead of just opening it up to any TB member, it might make more sense to have the VP make the annoucement. That might make things run a little more smoothly.

How's this:

How's this:

D. Public Notice Procedures
i. Once a motion has been put before TalkBoard for a vote the Vice President/Secretary shall post a new thread in the public TalkBoard Topics forum announcing the vote along with the voting end date as quickly as feasible. Once that thread is posted, the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary will submit a request to the FlyerTalk Host or representative to create an site-wide announcment of the vote with a link to the discussion/voting thread in the TalkBoard Topics Forum. The Announcement will be available until either voting is completed and a decision is made or the voting period ends.
ii. Motions on topics related to the internal administration of TalkBoard as determined by the President and some topics requested for discussion or input by the FlyerTalk Host will be exempted from this public posting requirement.
iii. The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.
iv. Once an active proposal has received sufficient Yes votes for approval or sufficient No votes that approval is not possible, the Vice President/Secretary shall post this fact in the public TalkBaord Topics thread announcing the vote.
iv.v. Once voting is completed and the TalkBoard President has formally announced the results of the vote in the TalkBoard forum the Vice President/Secretary shall announce the full results of the roll call vote in
a. the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote
b. a new thread in the Town Hall forum.

How's this:

How's this:

D. Public Notice Procedures
i. Once a motion has been put before TalkBoard for a vote the Vice President/Secretary shall post a new thread in the public TalkBoard Topics forum announcing the vote along with the voting end date as quickly as feasible. Once that thread is posted, the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary will submit a request to the FlyerTalk Host or representative to create an site-wide announcment of the vote with a link to the discussion/voting thread in the TalkBoard Topics Forum. The Announcement will be available until either voting is completed and a decision is made or the voting period ends.
ii. Motions on topics related to the internal administration of TalkBoard as determined by the President and some topics requested for discussion or input by the FlyerTalk Host will be exempted from this public posting requirement.
iii. The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.
iv. Once an active proposal has received sufficient Yes votes for approval or sufficient No votes that approval is not possible, the Vice President/Secretary shall post this fact in the public TalkBaord Topics thread announcing the vote.
iv.v. Once voting is completed and the TalkBoard President has formally announced the results of the vote in the TalkBoard forum the Vice President/Secretary shall announce the full results of the roll call vote in
a. the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote
b. a new thread in the Town Hall forum.

I like this version better than the "In addition, TalkBoard members are free to disclose publicly the fact that an active proposal has received sufficient Yes votes for approval or sufficient No votes that approval is not possible." This version doesn't leave it to the whims of TalkBoard, but insists that it be posted, and formalizes that process.

I realize that there is also discussion in this thread about changing voting/discussion procedure or timeframes, and right now, I'd rather not add all of that into the discussion, at least on this thread, since there are other threads in which to discuss that. I'd like to keep this to discussion on if TalkBoard motion voting information should be reported when the motion has received enough votes for it or enough votes that it cannot pass. :D

(My post copied from the private forum.)

I'm flexible with how we go about this as long as some mechanism is put in place whereby one (or a few) person (people) can't hold the vote hostage.

I was most uncomfortable with allowing anyone to post the results as it seems undignified for the sixth vote to race out and announce the results. I'm happy to make it a duty of the TB VP as I'm confident Sharon will do so in a timely manner.

By all means, anyone should be able to take the full voting period. Just means the names will be withheld until the ninth vote is cast or the time expires.

As far as debate and voting timescales, I'm flexible there, too, but I'd prefer to see motion to completion stay at two weeks. If we want to enforce a 3 day required debate time, fine, but then let's make the actual voting period 11 days. And I'm not a fan of shutting down debate, although closing a thread after a reasonable time after the vote's over makes sense to me.

I need to get myself checked out. You, as well as Kipper, keep on agreeing with me.

I must be ill :D

Uh oh. :eek:

Can you post something in OMNI/PR? Maybe everything will get back to normal then. :D

I need to get myself checked out. You, as well as Kipper, keep on agreeing with me.

I must be ill :D
In this case, I think you're agreeing with me. :D
Uh oh. :eek:

Can you post something in OMNI/PR? Maybe everything will get back to normal then. :D

:D Isn't it scary?

and http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1303881-should-talkboard-votes-held-public.html

I'd say to start with something that might actually have a chance of passing, and I don't know that voting in public would. So, if I were drafting a TalkBoard motion, it would probably read something like, "During all TalkBoard votes, once there are 6 pass votes or 4 fail votes, this information will be posted to the discussion thread."

I would also prefer to know when a motion has enough yes votes to pass or has enough no votes to render it D.O.A.

On a personal level, it doesn't make a huge difference to me either way on this one as I'm usually not the last to vote & usually in the first few to vote.

I'm good with the status quo...the main reason I like it is because I don't think anyone should feel any pressure to vote immediately and in fact, I believe in the 5+ years I've served on TalkBoard, there have been several instances of TalkBoard members voting off the cuff, immediately, and then regretting their vote after the fact.

I think this would, unfortunately, by pressure (although my fellow TB members say that names won't be shared) speed up the voting process and not allow TB members to fully examine and contemplate their votes.

Sure, there are some cases that can be referred to as "no-brainers" - but there have been votes in the past where careful consideration is and was appropriate.

Based on that alone, I'd probably vote against this motion. Not 100% sure yet though - as it's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things...but I think people shouldn't be pressured & I would encourage people to really think things through before voting...and this, IMHO, discourages that.

This seems like a minor change that improves the current situation. My only hesitation is that voting on such a minor matter feeds the perception (which may be accurate!) that the TalkBoard mostly focuses on itself. :o

On the contrary, because this change would be made solely for the benefit of the members who don't have access to the private TB forum and might not want to spend time arguing an issue that's already been decided, I dont see how anyone could claim it is a case of the TB focusing on itself.

On a personal level, it doesn't make a huge difference to me either way on this one as I'm usually not the last to vote & usually in the first few to vote.

I'm good with the status quo...the main reason I like it is because I don't think anyone should feel any pressure to vote immediately and in fact, I believe in the 5+ years I've served on TalkBoard, there have been several instances of TalkBoard members voting off the cuff, immediately, and then regretting their vote after the fact.

I think this would, unfortunately, by pressure (although my fellow TB members say that names won't be shared) speed up the voting process and not allow TB members to fully examine and contemplate their votes.

Sure, there are some cases that can be referred to as "no-brainers" - but there have been votes in the past where careful consideration is and was appropriate.

Based on that alone, I'd probably vote against this motion. Not 100% sure yet though - as it's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things...but I think people shouldn't be pressured & I would encourage people to really think things through before voting...and this, IMHO, discourages that.

Leaning towards this.

Cheers.

and http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1303881-should-talkboard-votes-held-public.html

Not enough support...yet.

But all good things in time... :)

On a personal level, it doesn't make a huge difference to me either way on this one as I'm usually not the last to vote & usually in the first few to vote.

I'm good with the status quo...the main reason I like it is because I don't think anyone should feel any pressure to vote immediately and in fact, I believe in the 5+ years I've served on TalkBoard, there have been several instances of TalkBoard members voting off the cuff, immediately, and then regretting their vote after the fact.

I think this would, unfortunately, by pressure (although my fellow TB members say that names won't be shared) speed up the voting process and not allow TB members to fully examine and contemplate their votes.

Sure, there are some cases that can be referred to as "no-brainers" - but there have been votes in the past where careful consideration is and was appropriate.

Based on that alone, I'd probably vote against this motion. Not 100% sure yet though - as it's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things...but I think people shouldn't be pressured & I would encourage people to really think things through before voting...and this, IMHO, discourages that.
If the change was written how koko has it currently, it wouldn't reveal names of who has and has not voted. All it does is tell people, once the 4 or 6 votes have been reached, "You can stop discussing and debating it now, as the motion has been decided. If you still want to debate it, you can, but the motion has either passed or failed to pass, so debating it now will not make a difference."

If the change was written how koko has it currently, it wouldn't reveal names of who has and has not voted. All it does is tell people, once the 4 or 6 votes have been reached, "You can stop discussing and debating it now, as the motion has been decided. If you still want to debate it, you can, but the motion has either passed or failed to pass, so debating it now will not make a difference."

I've said this multiple times both here and in the private forum and I don't think it made a difference, to be honest.

I've said this multiple times both here and in the private forum and I don't think it made a difference, to be honest.

So, in other words, what you are saying is that for some on TalkBoard, they are not even open to considering a motion that might benefit the membership? :eek:

So, in other words, what you are saying is that for some on TalkBoard, they are not even open to considering a motion that might benefit the membership? :eek:

I can't speak for other TB members, but I'm open to considering things. Having said that, it doesn't mean I have to agree with what's being proposed every time or even w/ different arguments on both sides - just as others don't have to agree with me. That's part of being a FTer and a TB member.

Cheers.

I've said this multiple times both here and in the private forum and I don't think it made a difference, to be honest.

Of course TB members can, if they like, announce how and when they voted in the discussion thread. There is precedent for that!;)

So, in other words, what you are saying is that for some on TalkBoard, they are not even open to considering a motion that might benefit the membership? :eek:

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization or question in this case. Sharon is about as diligent a TB member as there is and if she's opposed, I'm sure she has her reasons and will tell us what they are -- in considerably less than 2 weeks when possible. :D

I can't speak for other TB members, but I'm open to considering things. Having said that, it doesn't mean I have to agree with what's being proposed every time or even w/ different arguments on both sides - just as others don't have to agree with me. That's part of being a FTer and a TB member.

Cheers.

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization or question in this case. Sharon is about as diligent a TB member as there is and if she's opposed, I'm sure she has her reasons and will tell us what they are -- in considerably less than 2 weeks when possible. :D

I took Rich's original quoted post to mean that he's mentioned in the private TB forum that a motion like what koko has drafted does nothing to affect the speed with which people vote, or announce who has voted, but simply tells people that they don't need to continue the debate. I also took it to mean that he didn't feel as his explanation had made a difference.

My understanding of it may be incorrect. However, I took his comment to also mean that some TB members are opposed to anything like this without giving it any real consideration.

I would think by allowing FT members to know if a motion has enough votes to pass, or has received enough votes to block its passage would perhaps minimize some of the "strong" messages that tend to evolve as a discussion progresses. Shouldn't building a stronger, healthier, more polite community be something TB would want to embrace?

Actually, I'd rather see public discussion held, then closed and then have the vote take place as this would further eliminate the heated debate-and then if a motion passes or fails with the required number of votes before the voting period has ended, you could then post the results.

Public discussion opens
Public discussion held
Public discussion closes
Vote held
Vote results published

Yes, this might/could/would add time to the whole process but imho, it's a better way to go

I'm not sure closing threads for comment would end the debate; they could pop up elsewhere. For example: Talkboard is voting on allowing posts in Omni to count towards post totals (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/1240971-talkboard-voting-allowing-posts-omni-count-towards-post-totals.html) in OMNI.

This motion would not put pressure on anyone to vote immediately. In fact, it would do just the opposite.

If a motion has 6 in favor (or 4 against), the matter is decided.

Let's assume for a moment that I am a TB member who has not yet made up his mind. As things stand right now, I would feel that any respect at all for the membership dictates that I cast my vote immediately so as not to delay informing them. Hence, I might vote in a way which I would later regret.

On the other hand, if I know that the results will be announced whether or not I vote (although the names of who voted will not be revealed until voting is completed), then I would not be at all hesitant about taking the entire 2 weeks before casting my ballot, giving it as much thought as I feel it deserves.

About the only "down side" to this motion is depriving a TalkBoard member of the "power" to keep the membership waiting to know the results and, frankly, if anyone gets pleasure from that petty exercise of his or her authority then he or she belongs in kindergarden, not on TalkBoard.

I'm all for announcing the results earlier, if the required number of votes has been received before the end of the official voting deadline.

However, I don't support the idea of having the vote 'in public' for various reasons:

- It may pursuade voting members to change their position if they vote later and can already see the existing vote count 'for' and 'against' (seemingly giving later voting members more 'power')
- It would be unfair pressure on voting members who vote later in the process

I'd support an announcement which listed out who each member voted, but after the vote has completed.

I'm all for announcing the results earlier, if the required number of votes has been received before the end of the official voting deadline.

However, I don't support the idea of having the vote 'in public' for various reasons:

- It may pursuade voting members to change their position if they vote later and can already see the existing vote count 'for' and 'against' (seemingly giving later voting members more 'power')
- It would be unfair pressure on voting members who vote later in the process

I'd support an announcement which listed out who each member voted, but after the vote has completed.

I believe each of the TB members can see the vote count tally as it occurs. It is private to them. The balance of FT'ers do not have access until the vote is complete and released.

Of course my understanding may be incorrect.

I'm not sure closing threads for comment would end the debate; they could pop up elsewhere. For example: Talkboard is voting on allowing posts in Omni to count towards post totals (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/1240971-talkboard-voting-allowing-posts-omni-count-towards-post-totals.html) in OMNI.

Precisely. Nor do I think it is good practice to stifle/limit debate, since a member coming upon the subject after the "official" discussion period may have a very salient contribution to make to the discussion that could significantly affect the outcome. That has happened before, IIRC.

I believe each of the TB members can see the vote count tally as it occurs. It is private to them. The balance of FT'ers do not have access until the vote is complete and released.

Of course my understanding may be incorrect.

Right, they have kept private and not asking TB any question about voting, creation new forum and etc. TB have kept the privacy when they passed the motion or voting failed. TB is their own choice and not TB members decsion.

I'd support an announcement which listed out who each member voted, but after the vote has completed.
That is exactly the status quo (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions-605/).

Precisely. Nor do I think it is good practice to stifle/limit debate, since a member coming upon the subject after the "official" discussion period may have a very salient contribution to make to the discussion that could significantly affect the outcome. That has happened before, IIRC.

I know others have suggested limiting discussion times. However, my idea is not to limit discussion and lock threads, but rather, do away with some of the very "strong, passionate" language that is sometimes used towards the end of a debate. I feel that by announcing that a motion has the votes to pass or will not receive enough votes to pass will minimize some of the "strong" language used, and will, in turn, strengthen the community.

As things stand now, they are absolutely ridiculous.

We have not been told if the Games Forum was approved.

We have not been told if posts on it will count.

For all of that, there is a new Games Forum and posts on it are, indeed, being added to our post counts.

As things stand now, they are absolutely ridiculous.

We have not been told if the Games Forum was approved.

We have not been told if posts on it will count.

For all of that, there is a new Games Forum and posts on it are, indeed, being added to our post counts.

I am not, according to the TB Guidelines, allowed to announce the results.

I will say that the status quo is *not* how the vote ended. I expect that IB needs to flip some switches and I'm sure Sharon will be along to announce the vote results soon.

I will say that the status quo is *not* how the vote ended.

Now I get it. The Games Forum was not approved and will soon cease to exist. Future posts made on it will stop being counted as soon as it disappears. :D

As things stand now, they are absolutely ridiculous.

We have not been told if the Games Forum was approved.

We have not been told if posts on it will count.

For all of that, there is a new Games Forum and posts on it are, indeed, being added to our post counts.

Yes, this is true. :D

As things stand now, they are absolutely ridiculous.

We have not been told if the Games Forum was approved.

We have not been told if posts on it will count.

For all of that, there is a new Games Forum and posts on it are, indeed, being added to our post counts.

Oh good grief - the vote ended last night after I shut down my computer. I did work this morning & am now on FT during lunch. EXCUSE me that I didn't get on to FT at 6am to check & post immediately the results - which I will be doing in a few minutes. Sorry that's 'late'' for some of you :rolleyes:

Cheers.

Oh good grief - the vote ended last night after I shut down my computer. I did work this morning & am now on FT during lunch. EXCUSE me that I didn't get on to FT at 6am to check & post immediately the results - which I will be doing in a few minutes. Sorry that's 'late'' for some of you :rolleyes:

Cheers.

So you do not consider it ridiculous that the forum was established before it was announced and that posts are being counted on the Game forum but not Omni?

Oh good grief - the vote ended last night after I shut down my computer. I did work this morning & am now on FT during lunch. EXCUSE me that I didn't get on to FT at 6am to check & post immediately the results - which I will be doing in a few minutes. Sorry that's 'late'' for some of you :rolleyes:

Cheers.

lol, I was thinking that you were going to have to stay up late as the vote closed after 11pm EST, and we all could have guessed that the last vote would not be in until just at the deadline. :D:D

So you do not consider it ridiculous that the forum was established before it was announced and that posts are being counted on the Game forum but not Omni?

You would have to discuss that w/ the Community Director.

Cheers.

So you do not consider it ridiculous that the forum was established before it was announced and that posts are being counted on the Game forum but not Omni?

Well, I think we can all tell what the outcome of at least one vote was. :D

I do think that perhaps, in the future, the better option is for the CD to wait to create a new forum until the votes have been made public. However, should TalkBoard agree that once a motion receives enough votes that it will pass, or enough that it will fail, then perhaps the CD creating a forum as soon as a vote closes would not be taken as odd. :D

So you do not consider it ridiculous that the forum was established before it was announced and that posts are being counted on the Game forum but not Omni?

I think that it is awesome, incredible, wonderful and delightful that our Community Director is so responsive and efficient. Those with access to the private TB forum have known the outcome of all three of these votes for a week. She was clearly set to respond when the last vote was finally cast.

No sea gull manager, her! ^^^^^^^

As for Sharon's announcement, as I noted, the vote closed late on the east coast, not so late on the west coast where the CD tends to be.

I don't fault her for posting the results within 12 or so hours of the vote closing.

You would have to discuss that w/ the Community Director.

Cheers.

But it was you, not her, who quoted my post about it and started your reply with "Oh good grief".

Well, I think we can all tell what the outcome of at least one vote was. :D

I do think that perhaps, in the future, the better option is for the CD to wait to create a new forum until the votes have been made public.As noted, it's mostly just about time zones. And TB member(s) waiting until the last moment to vote. I am very pleased with the CD implementing recommendations quickly! Even ones like the games forum and their not counting that I voted against.

However, should TalkBoard agree that once a motion receives enough votes that it will pass, or enough that it will fail, then perhaps the CD creating a forum as soon as a vote closes would not be taken as odd. :D

Yes indeed.

And expect to see yet another announcement on that matter very, very, very soon! ^

I think that it is awesome, incredible, wonderful and delightful that our Community Director is so responsive and efficient. Those with access to the private TB forum have known the outcome of all three of these votes for a week. She was clearly set to respond when the last vote was finally cast.

No sea gull manager, her! ^^^^^^^

As for Sharon's announcement, as I noted, the vote closed late on the east coast, not so late on the west coast where the CD tends to be.

I don't fault her for posting the results within 12 or so hours of the vote closing.
Notification once a motion will either pass or fail would allow the CD's responsiveness to not appear strange then. For some, it was a bit strange this morning.

As noted, it's mostly just about time zones. I am very pleased with the CD implementing recommendations quickly!



Yes indeed.

And expect to see yet another announcement on that matter very, very, very soon! ^

:D You are, I believe, doing quite a bit of work on TalkBoard!!!

Actually, I'd rather see public discussion held, then closed and then have the vote take place as this would further eliminate the heated debate-and then if a motion passes or fails with the required number of votes before the voting period has ended, you could then post the results.

Public discussion opens
Public discussion held
Public discussion closes
Vote held
Vote results published

Yes, this might/could/would add time to the whole process but imho, it's a better way to goI'm not sure closing threads for comment would end the debate; they could pop up elsewhere. For example: Talkboard is voting on allowing posts in Omni to count towards post totals (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/1240971-talkboard-voting-allowing-posts-omni-count-towards-post-totals.html) in OMNI.True that it won't end the debate but the way I see it is that if a motion has passed or failed, it's a done deal until someone wants to change it and afaic, that's the way to go. Move on from the current discussion as it stands as "it ain't gonna change the results" as imho, there are other issues to be discussed (or in other words, don't beat the dead horse) and that would be a deal breaker for me

Nice in theory to have real time results of votes.. but, in real life its better to have everyone vote confidentially until the vote closes and then post the results..

Nice in theory to have real time results of votes.. but, in real life its better to have everyone vote confidentially until the vote closes and then post the results..

Everyone would continue to vote confidentially under this proposal until the vote closes.

Unless, of course, a member decides to announce publicly that he voted (or how he voted) you would have no idea of who favors and who opposes a motion before the voting has finished.

You would simply know that the motion has passed or has failed.

As all the TalkBoard members already know the moment that someone votes if he was in favor or against the motion, and they are the only ones who can vote on it, there is nothing in this motion which would influence the outcome of a vote.

Why the need for confidential votes? It is published at the end of the vote anyway. I'd like to know what is going on in real time. It does influence my voting decision.

I'm curious as to who was the hold out on this last vote and why.

Was she/he out of town? Ill? Undecided and waiting for more inpt from the FT members? Playing a game with the FT members and purposely making them wait?

Was she/he out of town? Ill? Undecided and waiting for more inpt from the FT members? Playing a game with the FT members and purposely making them wait?

It may be any or none of the above. Regardless, the published requirements of TalkBoard are that each member has a two-week window in which to vote.

As long as that requirement is met, I do not believe it is appropriate to hold any TalkBoard member in any less regard due to the specific time period in which they voted.

Why the need for confidential votes? It is published at the end of the vote anyway. I'd like to know what is going on in real time. It does influence my voting decision.

I'm curious as to who was the hold out on this last vote and why.

Was she/he out of town? Ill? Undecided and waiting for more inpt from the FT members? Playing a game with the FT members and purposely making them wait?

I'm on the record in support of public, by TB member name, voting because I believe you deserve answers to your questions. And I could tell you the answers to at least some of your questions (although I can't get inside a TB member's mind to know their motivation), but that would be in violation of the TB's secrecy rules. Rules which unfortunately protect this sort of action/behavior from becoming known to the posters. That's frustrating.

You deserve the transparency you seek.

Unfortunately, I believe I am the only current TB member who supports public real time voting. Hence the compromise of announcing when a vote has enough votes to pass or fail. Not nearly far enough for me, personally. But a positive step in the right direction.

I'm on the record in support of public, by TB member name, voting because I believe you deserve answers to your questions. And I could tell you the answers to at least some of your questions (although I can't get inside a TB member's mind to know their motivation), but that would be in violation of the TB's secrecy rules. Rules which unfortunately protect this sort of action/behavior from becoming known to the posters. That's frustrating.

You deserve the transparency you seek.

Unfortunately, I believe I am the only current TB member who supports public real time voting. Hence the compromise of announcing when a vote has enough votes to pass or fail. Not nearly far enough for me, personally. But a positive step in the right direction.

Sometimes, you have to take baby steps, because as long as they are going forward, it's progress of some sort.

I'm on the record in support of public, by TB member name, voting because I believe you deserve answers to your questions. And I could tell you the answers to at least some of your questions (although I can't get inside a TB member's mind to know their motivation), but that would be in violation of the TB's secrecy rules. Rules which unfortunately protect this sort of action/behavior from becoming known to the posters. That's frustrating.

You deserve the transparency you seek.

Unfortunately, I believe I am the only current TB member who supports public real time voting. Hence the compromise of announcing when a vote has enough votes to pass or fail. Not nearly far enough for me, personally. But a positive step in the right direction.

I would support this, *but* I have concerns about the pressure put on voters who may simply be away from their computers for a few days.

Personally, I think that voters have enough ammo as it is. It's easy to find out, using public tools how many posts TB members have made in the public TB Topics forum, for example, since a certain date has passed.

Here are the number of posts made in the last month by TalkBoard members in this forum:

162, 106, 103, 39, 34, 32, 23, 17, 0.

162, 106, 103, 39, 34, 32, 23, 17, 0.

Sounds like those w/ more than 100 have too much time on their hands :p :D (odds are I'm one of them LOL).

Cheers.

Sounds like those w/ more than 100 have too much time on their hands :p :D (odds are I'm one of them LOL).

Cheers.

We have a winner. :D

I've been "not traveling" the past few weeks, so it's been easy to get into conversations and the like here. I'm sure the number will slow for me, but not to 0.

I would support this, *but* I have concerns about the pressure put on voters who may simply be away from their computers for a few days.


Rich, as you know I voted for you for TB, and in general I am happy that I did, but I have to call "bull" on this.

This would not put any pressure on voters and would, in fact, reduce it.

Let's say that YOU have not yet voted but the motion either passed or failed. Why, if the results were to be announced, would you feel any pressure? You would still have the full two-week period in which to vote and who voted would not be announced until that time was up. Only the "pass" or "defeated" announcement would be made.

On the other hand, the status quo remains, a vote has already passed (or been defeated) and you had not voted, if you cared even the tiniest bit about the members who want to know the results, you might well feel pressured to get your vote in.

Sounds like those w/ more than 100 have too much time on their hands :p :D (odds are I'm one of them LOL).

Cheers.

If that 162 is me, I may indeed need to get a life. :(

How does one divine these numbers, pray tell!

Rich, as you know I voted for you for TB, and in general I am happy that I did, but I have to call "bull" on this.

This would not put any pressure on voters and would, in fact, reduce it.

Let's say that YOU have not yet voted but the motion either passed or failed. Why, if the results were to be announced, would you feel any pressure? You would still have the full two-week period in which to vote and who voted would not be announced until that time was up. Only the "pass" or "defeated" announcement would be made.

On the other hand, the status quo remains, a vote has already passed (or been defeated) and you had not voted, if you cared even the tiniest bit about the members who want to know the results, you might well feel pressured to get your vote in.

He was referring to my proposal to do the TB vote 'polls' in this forum rather than in the private TB forum, allowing posters here to see how each of us are voting at any given moment during the 2 week period.

He was referring to my proposal to do the TB vote 'polls' in this forum rather than in the private TB forum, allowing posters here to see how each of us are voting at any given moment during the 2 week period.

In that case, I misunderstood and I apologize.

Rich, as you know I voted for you for TB, and in general I am happy that I did, but I have to call "bull" on this.

This would not put any pressure on voters and would, in fact, reduce it.

Let's say that YOU have not yet voted but the motion either passed or failed. Why, if the results were to be announced, would you feel any pressure? You would still have the full two-week period in which to vote and who voted would not be announced until that time was up. Only the "pass" or "defeated" announcement would be made.

On the other hand, the status quo remains, a vote has already passed (or been defeated) and you had not voted, if you cared even the tiniest bit about the members who want to know the results, you might well feel pressured to get your vote in.
Dov, I think Rich's comment about putting pressure on voters is in regards to public voting, not simply announcing if a motion has received enough votes to pass. Koko favors conducting the voting in public, i.e., just TB votes in the poll, but everyone has read-only access to it, and can see who has voted and how.

If that 162 is me, I may indeed need to get a life. :(

How does one divine these numbers, pray tell!

No, it's me. I'm the one with no life. You are next, though. :D

I did a search (9 simple searches, actually) on the TB Topics forum by name of the TB members using the last month and reporting by posts, not threads.

Dov, I was talking about public voting.

Sounds like those w/ more than 100 have too much time on their hands :p :D (odds are I'm one of them LOL).

Nothing wrong with that, in fact I wish there would be some more active participation by TB members.

Here are the number of posts made in the last month by TalkBoard members in this forum:

162, 106, 103, 39, 34, 32, 23, 17, 0.

Last year we had two Talk Board members that were at "0" for several months. Until the Talk Board members change the rules there's no requirement for them to participate publicly.

SkiAdcock did raise the issue in 2010 but not enough support, I gather, to get any changes made.
Adjusting bylaws to require TB members actually have to post in TB threads (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1086336-adjusting-bylaws-require-tb-members-actually-have-post-tb-threads.html)

And just last year we had discussion about two Talk Board members that had abandoned posting in the public forum:
Expectations of TB members communicating with members (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1239286-expectations-tb-members-communicating-members.html)

Last year we had two Talk Board members that were at "0" for several months. Until the Talk Board members change the rules there's no requirement for them to participate publicly.

SkiAdcock did raise the issue in 2010 but not enough support, I gather, to get any changes made.
Adjusting bylaws to require TB members actually have to post in TB threads (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1086336-adjusting-bylaws-require-tb-members-actually-have-post-tb-threads.html)

And just last year we had discussion about two Talk Board members that had abandoned posting in the public forum:
Expectations of TB members communicating with members (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1239286-expectations-tb-members-communicating-members.html)

Voting doesn't count as a post.. so still possible that TB members can be involved, but not posting..

Voting doesn't count as a post.. so still possible that TB members can be involved, but not posting..

That's not participating. At least not in my book.

That's not participating. At least not in my book.

But, according to the TB guidelines, that is considered participating, isn't it?

But, according to the TB guidelines, that is considered participating, isn't it?

Indeed, there is no requirement for a TB member to post here.

It's really, really, really poor form, imho, for a TB member to not post here.

But that's just one poster's opinion. :)

Indeed, there is no requirement for a TB member to post here.

It's really, really, really poor form, imho, for a TB member to not post here.

But that's just one poster's opinion. :)

TB member interaction here at least gives the illusion that they are willing to share their opinions with the general public.

TB member interaction here at least gives the illusion that they are willing to share their opinions with the general public.With me, it's not an illusion-I'll give my opinion and answer questions and respond to comments about my opinion

With me, it's not an illusion-I'll give my opinion and answer questions and respond to comments about my opinion

:) Yes, but for some, they rarely post. :)

I'm a bit disturbed by what I consider a bit of a witch hunt/outing (my term) by some TB & FT members who are not happy w/ a TB member. A TB member who HAS participated many times on public TB forum in the past it should be noted. Yes, the accusers do the generic thing to cover themselves, but it's not hard to read between the lines.

Please note this is not directed towards the post above mine! I've been thinking it for a while on both private & TB forum.

* Disclosure: This is my take & does not represent any other TB members.

TB members are required to participate in private TB forum. Technically they're not on public, but quite frankly most do & have over the years so for the most part it's not an issue.

But this recent jumping on someone is distasteful (at least to me), and I also have to wonder if the TB member being dissed (who has participated a LOT in the public forum before the last month) is saying I'll wait 'til they get over their jumping on me & then get back to bizness. Note I have no way of knowing if that's their thought nor would I say it's a method I would choose, but I also kind of get it. It could also be they feel the rest of us are covering the issues, so +1 isn't perhaps needed. My point is that if a (any) TB member has been a regular participant in the public TB forum for a long time, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt in the short term.

I would also say to both TB & FT members - if you have a problem w/ a particular TB member, PM them and/or the Community Director.

FWIW - I'd rather see TB subjects actually be on something that serves the better good of FT in terms of forums, wikipedia, etc, vs. individuals, but that's just my 2 cents (which I think in the UK/Europe is minus 2 cents given the exchange rate :D).

PS - It goes w/o saying that FT/TB members never have to worry about what I say/think. I've always engaged/responded to everyone. :p :D

Cheers.

BTW - re: my thoughts on the real-time stuff:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17949203-post31.html

Cheers.

I'm a bit disturbed by what I consider a bit of a 'witch hunt/outing' (my term) by some TB & FT members who are not happy w/ a TB member (a TB member who HAS participated many times on public TB forum in the past). Yes, the accusers do the generic thing to cover themselves ;), but it's not hard to read between the lines.

Please note this is not directed towards the post above mine! I've been thinking it for a while on both private & TB forum.

* Disclosure: This is my take & does not represent any other TB members.

TB members are required to participate in private TB forum. Technically they're not on public, but quite frankly most do & have over the years.

But this recent 'pissing war' to me quite frankly is distasteful, and I also have to wonder if the TB member being dissed (who has participated a LOT before the last month) is saying screw it, I'll wait 'til they get over their crap & then get back to bizness. Note I have no way of knowing if that's their thought nor would I say it's a method I would choose, but I also kind of get it.

I would say to both TB & FT members - if you have a problem w/ a particular TB member, PM them and/or the Community Director.

I'd rather see TB subjects actually be on something that serves the better good of FT in terms of forums, wikipedia, etc, but that's just my 2 cents (which I think in the UK/Europe is minus 2 cents :D).

PS - It goes w/o saying that FT/TB members never have to worry about what I say/think. I've always engaged/responded to everyone.

Cheers.

Sharon,

I respect your opinion, but as a wise person once said, "If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck..."

I realize I'm a total newbie in this section of FT and, therefore, some might discount my opinion. Nevertheless, I've been a member for a while and have recently read a great many threads in this section so I feel I have a somewhat decent handle on the situation here. That said, I'm having a problem with this:

I'll wait 'til they get over their crap & then get back to bizness.

Could it really be considered "crap" by some members (well maybe one member) of the TB to tackle issues that a portion of the contributing membership obviously cares about? And if that member doesn't agree with the issue being addressed is that really an excuse to just ignore the situation until a topic is brought up that they deem worthy to comment on?

That, to me, is a bit 'disturbing'.

I don't see any kind of "witch hunt" happening here at all. More like simply calling a spade a spade.

JMO...

Quack, Quack!;)

Voting doesn't count as a post.. so still possible that TB members can be involved, but not posting..

What if all Talk Board members felt that way and elected not to post in public? Without them participating in the public forum there wouldn't be much need for a public forum. Last year we had two Talk Board members who went months without posting, yet they met the requirement to remain Talk Board members, and they could not be recalled because there is no requirement to post here. Sort of like a secret society if you're a Talk Board member that only expresses his opinion on the private Talk Board forum and not in public.

Sharon,

I respect your opinion, but as a wise person once said, "If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck..."

And I respect yours. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I realize I'm a total newbie in this section of FT and, therefore, some might discount my opinion. Nevertheless, I've been a member for a while and have recently read a great many threads in this section so I feel I have a somewhat decent handle on the situation here. That said, I'm having a problem with this:



Could it really be considered "crap" by some members (well maybe one member) of the TB to tackle issues that a portion of the contributing membership obviously cares about? And if that member doesn't agree with the issue being addressed is that really an excuse to just ignore the situation until a topic is brought up that they deem worthy to comment on?

That, to me, is a bit 'disturbing'.

I don't see any kind of "witch hunt" happening here at all. More like simply calling a spade a spade.

JMO...

In fairness I should not have used that word & have edited my response to eliminate it. I can't speak for other TB members & am just guessing. I probably shouldn't post late at night when I'm tired (and cranky because one of the few times I was on for chat it was down - again :rolleyes: :mad:)

My point was that if a (any) TB member has been a regular contributor on the public TB forum for a long time, but there's a single month where they aren't, it doesn't necessarily constitute a long-term problem but could be due to a variety of things & I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Now if it continued for several months that would be a dif issue. But the jumping on someone when we're not near that stage is, to me, inappropriate.

Re: the need for public TB forum if TB members didn't post on it. First I'd be stunned if 9 TB members decided not to post. But even if they did, the public TB forum would still be needed because we're seeking input on items like forums, wikipedia, etc, from FTers. Even the two who didn't participate publicly last year said they read all the threads in the public forum before voting.

Cheers.

I'm still on the fence on this one, and while I was leaning against but then towards yes I'm leaning against again.

I think we're micromanaging something that's worked in the past for several years & probably will continue to work for several years in the future.

TB members have 2 weeks to vote - that encompasses any travel time but also if they want to take in input from FTers, that input as well. Which is a good thing.

I think we do a disservice to BOTH TB members & FT members when we say hey, we're gonna post it's passed/failed, so to FTers it doesn't matter two patooties what you think at this point. But hey for TB members that didn't vote before, no worries, as long as you vote we don't care what you think either at this point but thanks for eventually voting so it looks pretty at the end when we post results.

So if it's announced it's passed on day 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12 or 14 - we're not talking truly, truly changing FTers experiences for the worst by magnitudes if they have to wait a few extra days to find out if something passed/failed. In other words, the FT world will not fall apart if FTers who check TB have to wait the full 14 days on the few occasions that happens.

Note I say that as a regular FTer who actually proposed a forum a few years back that got turned down & then a few years later when it was approved. I was ok with waiting on the process both times & didn't see any need to have it altered.

Cheers.

I think we do a disservice to BOTH TB members & FT members when we say hey, we're gonna post it's passed/failed, so to FTers it doesn't matter two patooties what you think at this point. But hey for TB members that didn't vote before, no worries, as long as you vote we don't care what you think either at this point but thanks for eventually voting so it looks pretty at the end when we post results.

The fact remains, however, that if a motion gets 6 votes in favor, or 4 against, it really does not matter two patooties what that remaining member thinks. You know that, he knows that, and all of the remaining TB members know that.

All you are doing is keeping secret from the membership the results of the vote until that last member decides to cast his ballot. Frankly, I think there is already too much secrecy on FT. Why not get rid of this small bit of it?

I'm still on the fence on this one...Dovster's comment is a bit more succinct and probably easier to understand than mine, but is pretty much the same as my reply in the "Comments Welcome" thread.

The fact remains, however, that if a motion gets 6 votes in favor, or 4 against, it really does not matter two patooties what that remaining member thinks. You know that, he knows that, and all of the remaining TB members know that.

All you are doing is keeping secret from the membership the results of the vote until that last member decides to cast his ballot. Frankly, I think there is already too much secrecy on FT. Why not get rid of this small bit of it?

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. ^

I would also say to both TB & FT members - if you have a problem w/ a particular TB member, PM them and/or the Community Director.
I have attempted to address this issue via PM. To absolutely no avail. :(

That said, this proposal is not about what is going on here right now.

Rather, what is going on right now points out the need for this proposal.

Currently, whatever the TB member's motivation, it is possible for a TB member to drag out debate on an issue that is already secretly settled in the private TB forum. Doesn't matter if they are MIA, really slow to make decisions or having a fit because they are not happy about how votes are going.

But let's forget about the perspective of the TB member dragging it out and/or the TB members who know the outcome but are waiting for the last person to vote so they can announce it.

Look at it from the perspective of a regular poster who is passionate about an issue: you come to this forum and debate your heart out for day after day. Meanwhile, the issue has been settled for a week. How does that make you feel?

We were elected to the TB to act in the best interest of the posters. This proposal does exactly that: takes care of the posters by letting them not waste their time passionately trying to secure an outcome that is already decided.

This proposal is not about TB members. It is about taking care of the posters.

I see the primary benefit of this proposal as helping with the situation when a TB member drops offline for several weeks for whatever reason. This has happened in past years, and it holds every vote up for 2 weeks until the member returns or is removed from the TalkBoard.

With this proposal, extended absences of a TalkBoard member will have less effect on our ability to release vote results.

I'm a bit disturbed by what I consider a bit of a witch hunt/outing (my term) by some TB & FT members who are not happy w/ a TB member. A TB member who HAS participated many times on public TB forum in the past it should be noted. Yes, the accusers do the generic thing to cover themselves, but it's not hard to read between the lines.
+383,000 (Wonder why? Check out the FlyerTalk Forums Statistics Section ;))

For the record, Sharon, I am very happy that I voted for you. You'll have my vote again if you decide to "sacrifice" yourself and run for another TB term when the time comes. :)

Look at it from the perspective of a regular poster who is passionate about an issue: you come to this forum and debate your heart out for day after day. Meanwhile, the issue has been settled for a week. How does that make you feel?
That could be me.

FWIW, I am fine with the status quo w/r/t TB 2-week voting process/procedure. I can wait, and keep posting meanwhile.

I have attempted to address this issue via PM. To absolutely no avail. :(

That said, this proposal is not about what is going on here right now.

Rather, what is going on right now points out the need for this proposal.

Currently, whatever the TB member's motivation, it is possible for a TB member to drag out debate on an issue that is already secretly settled in the private TB forum. Doesn't matter if they are MIA, really slow to make decisions or having a fit because they are not happy about how votes are going.

But let's forget about the perspective of the TB member dragging it out and/or the TB members who know the outcome but are waiting for the last person to vote so they can announce it.

Look at it from the perspective of a regular poster who is passionate about an issue: you come to this forum and debate your heart out for day after day. Meanwhile, the issue has been settled for a week. How does that make you feel?

We were elected to the TB to act in the best interest of the posters. This proposal does exactly that: takes care of the posters by letting them not waste their time passionately trying to secure an outcome that is already decided.

This proposal is not about TB members. It is about taking care of the posters.

Well put kokonutz!

+383,000 (Wonder why? Check out the FlyerTalk Forums Statistics Section ;))

For the record, Sharon, I am very happy that I voted for you. You'll have my vote again if you decide to "sacrifice" yourself and run for another TB term when the time comes. :)


That could be me.

FWIW, I am fine with the status quo w/r/t TB 2-week voting process/procedure. I can wait, and keep posting meanwhile.

lin821, if this does indeed pass, there is nothing stopping you from waiting for the official, final count to be released. You may continue to post on this subject as well. At least the outcome - if decided- will be known to everyone and they will be able to direct their attention, or efforts, elsewhere.
Sounds like a win-win to me.:)

At least the outcome - if decided- will be known to everyone and they will be able to direct their attention, or efforts, elsewhere.

(bolding mine)

Are you sure? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1298928-motion-passed-posts-count-all-ft-forums.html) :p ;)

Even when outcome is announced per post#510 (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17845229-post510.html) on page 34, the attention, or efforts, still keeps the referenced motion thread alive, and currently at Page 50. What makes you think this new motion to amend TB guidelines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1309335-comments-welcome-voting-underway-amend-talkboard-guidelines-voting-results-disclosure.html) would change the "loving" dynamics among FTers?

And since when FTers would stop "talking" even with a decided outcome (quote borrowed from another TB thread)?

Members have been discussing post counts ever since Omni was removed from post counting. I believe that the issue has been voted on 3 times by Talkboard...

FWIW, I am just not sure if the amendment motion is really for the betterment of FT or serving some personal agenda in disguise.

RKG, there are really not that many days in 2 weeks, you know.

This proposal is not about TB members. It is about taking care of the posters.I think it is of little consequence to the needs of the greater membership. This thread has been live for 5 days and thus far has harvested responses from only 16 members. What does that say about the proposed CNNification of TalkBoard? ;)

RKG, there are really not that many days in 2 weeks, you know.Indeed, fourteen days is a perfectly reasonable period of time for each TB member to cast their vote on any given motion. There are no fires to be fought.

(bolding mine)

Are you sure? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1298928-motion-passed-posts-count-all-ft-forums.html) :p ;)

Even when outcome is announced per post#510 (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17845229-post510.html) on page 34, the attention, or efforts, still keeps the referenced motion thread alive, and currently at Page 50. What makes you think this new motion to amend TB guidelines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1309335-comments-welcome-voting-underway-amend-talkboard-guidelines-voting-results-disclosure.html) would change the "loving" dynamics among FTers?

And since when FTers would stop "talking" even with a decided outcome (quote borrowed from another TB thread)?



FWIW, I am just not sure if the amendment motion is really for the betterment of FT or serving some personal agenda in disguise.

RKG, there are really not that many days in 2 weeks, you know.

First, I never said that FT'ers had to stop posting their comments/opinions after the vote has already been decided (but not officially finalized and announced).

What I said was "At least the outcome - if decided- will be known to everyone and they will be able to direct their attention, or efforts, elsewhere."

If posters, pro or con, want to continue to beat a dead horse - they are certainly free to do so.;)
I have better uses for my time.

Finally, I do know there are not that many days in a week. Last count was 14.
14 days is relevant, in importance, to each poster on an individual basis. It might be an eternity to some and might pass quickly for others.

Calendar watchers and beaters of dead horses aside, I still think it is a win-win situation.

That's my opinion. Yours apparently differs. I respect your opinion.:)

I think it is of little consequence to the needs of the greater membership. This thread has been live for 5 days and thus far has harvested responses from only 16 members. What does that say about the proposed CNNification of TalkBoard? ;)

Indeed, fourteen days is a perfectly reasonable period of time for each TB member to cast their vote on any given motion. There are no fires to be fought.

I have no problem with the 14 day voting period for casting of votes.

However, when a motion has enough votes to either pass or reject it, then notifying the community will do no harm. It will allow some posters to move on to other things and leave the dead horse beaters to carry on.:)

TB member interaction here at least gives the illusion that they are willing to share their opinions with the general public.

Perhaps, TB members should be required to participate in forum discussions.. but I'm sure this notion has been visited many times in the past..

What if all Talk Board members felt that way and elected not to post in public? Without them participating in the public forum there wouldn't be much need for a public forum. Last year we had two Talk Board members who went months without posting, yet they met the requirement to remain Talk Board members, and they could not be recalled because there is no requirement to post here. Sort of like a secret society if you're a Talk Board member that only expresses his opinion on the private Talk Board forum and not in public.

So you're saying to require TB members to keep involved by posting? Certainly, the TB members should have a command of the topic issues, at the very least reading what the Public Forum has to say..

If there is a secret society, certainly the other TB members would know if other members remain involved through dialogue.. Personally, I agree that there should be a requirement to keep involved and up to speed with what the public forum is saying.. how that's enforced would be a good topic to tackle..

Perhaps, TB members should be required to participate in forum discussions.. but I'm sure this notion has been visited many times in the past..
In public forum discussions, or just in private discussions? I think many are as engaged in both, while others prefer to simply post in private threads only.
So you're saying to require TB members to keep involved by posting? Certainly, the TB members should have a command of the topic issues, at the very least reading what the Public Forum has to say..

If there is a secret society, certainly the other TB members would know if other members remain involved through dialogue.. Personally, I agree that there should be a requirement to keep involved and up to speed with what the public forum is saying.. how that's enforced would be a good topic to tackle..
You might want to read the thread here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1239286-expectations-tb-members-communicating-members.html) for more discussion about involvement on the public TB forum vs. the private TB forum.

Private discussions amongst Board Members is a must.. the question surfaces how much involvement a TB Member should engage in the public discussions..

The other question that surfaces, is how much measurable involvement would a TB Member be required to undertake with public forum involvement?..

imo, as long as TB members have a command of issues, part of which is public forum knowledge and input, that would be good. Just the perception of little involvement exists with low post counts.. as demonstrated in this thread..

Thanks for the link.:)

Private discussions amongst Board Members is a must.. the question surfaces how much involvement a TB Member should engage in the public discussions..

The other question that surfaces, is how much measurable involvement would a TB Member be required to undertake with public forum involvement?..

imo, as long as TB members have a command of issues, part of which is public forum knowledge and input, that would be good. Just the perception of little involvement exists with low post counts.. as demonstrated in this thread..

Thanks for the link.:)

Sometimes, perception matters more than people think or realize.

Sometimes, perception matters more than people think or realize.

Agree.. it seems to some the major impetus whether a TB member is active or so..

Reading the archives of previous TB threads, TB members would know whether another TB member is contributing or not.. so it seems historical that TB members enforce one another's participation.

Reading the archives of previous TB threads, TB members would know whether another TB member is contributing or not.. so it seems historical that TB members enforce one another's participation.

On the public forums? That didn't seem to help too much last year when two Talk Board members were posting all around FT while not appearing here for months. Didn't look like any Talk Board members were enforcing participation there. The problem was discussed in the public forum with other TB members and there was nothing within the rules that required either of them participate in the public forums.

Same thing could happen today. Any TB member could stop posting on the public forum for 6 months and there's no consequences (and no requirement to participate on the public forums). Just the way it is.

On the public forums? That didn't seem to help too much last year when two Talk Board members were posting all around FT while not appearing here for months. Didn't look like any Talk Board members were enforcing participation there. The problem was discussed in the public forum with other TB members and there was nothing within the rules that required either of them participate in the public forums.

Same thing could happen today. Any TB member could stop posting on the public forum for 6 months and there's no consequences (and no requirement to participate on the public forums). Just the way it is.

That's why I'd like to see something that they need to participate here as well, or open the private forum to read-only access for everyone, as then we could tell if they were participating there.

That's why I'd like to see something that they need to participate here as well, or open the private forum to read-only access for everyone, as then we could tell if they were participating there.

I'm actually fine with TB members doing whatever they want with respect to the public (or even private) forum.

At the same time, those TB members that don't participate here should be specifically called out during the next election. If those candidates get re-elected despite no participation, then that's no fault other than the voters'.

I'm actually fine with TB members doing whatever they want with respect to the public (or even private) forum.

Is there a requirement that a Talk Board member has to participate in discussions in the private forum? If you go MIA in both the public and private forums for months on end, does that just mean as long as you show up for the occasional vote you're still representing the membership? Can you even put up a motion, or second it, without posting somewhere? I guess it would need to be a member that doesn't want to propose any motions to vote on and also doesn't want to post publicly on either forum.

That might offer a challenge for someone who wants to run next year, gets elected, and then stays invisible for their entire term of office except for voting.

On the public forums? That didn't seem to help too much last year when two Talk Board members were posting all around FT while not appearing here for months. Didn't look like any Talk Board members were enforcing participation there. The problem was discussed in the public forum with other TB members and there was nothing within the rules that required either of them participate in the public forums.

Same thing could happen today. Any TB member could stop posting on the public forum for 6 months and there's no consequences (and no requirement to participate on the public forums). Just the way it is.

Perhaps if TB sees nonparticipation to be a problem, some rules could be introduced..

Perhaps if TB sees nonparticipation to be a problem, some rules could be introduced..

While I don't think additional rules to remove or punish a TB member would be practical, this motion (which is waiting for vote(s) or expiration just as the past few motions), if approved, will go a long way to help us be able to get things done without a minority (or even one) member slowing everything down.

While I don't think additional rules to remove or punish a TB member would be practical, this motion (which is waiting for vote(s) or expiration just as the past few motions), if approved, will go a long way to help us be able to get things done without a minority (or even one) member slowing everything down.

^

I am excited for Feb 15, 2012 at 12:36 pm to arrive!

I am hopeful that full participation may resume by all TB members at that point.

While I don't think additional rules to remove or punish a TB member would be practical, this motion (which is waiting for vote(s) or expiration just as the past few motions), if approved, will go a long way to help us be able to get things done without a minority (or even one) member slowing everything down.

Seems like a nobrainer motion to be voted on..

What would provide the motivation for all TB members to vote quickly if decided already? What would provide such urgency? It will be nice to get this efficiency..

What would provide the motivation for all TB members to vote quickly if decided already?

If the motion is already decided and announced it would not matter if the remaining TB member(s) voted quickly or not.

As it stand right now, if a motion is decided all TB members, whether they voted or not, know the results. This motion would stop the silliness we have seen recently where one TB member can keep the general membership from knowing the results until the final minute.

Tick tock. Tick tock.

Tick tock. Tick tock.

Impatient, are we? :D

If the motion is already decided and announced it would not matter if the remaining TB member(s) voted quickly or not.

As it stand right now, if a motion is decided all TB members, whether they voted or not, know the results. This motion would stop the silliness we have seen recently where one TB member can keep the general membership from knowing the results until the final minute.

Would make sense to keep confidential the vote, and when a majority is a determined passing the motion.. then reveal it.

Waiting to find out won't change the result.. so a common sense motion.^

This motion would stop the silliness we have seen recently where one TB member can keep the general membership from knowing the results until the final minute.

And getting the results of non-binding motions from an advisory board faster helps the general membership how?

MHO a two week period to cast ballots isn't an overly long period of time so wouldn't support making any changes. That is merely MHO and YMMV.

MHO a two week period to cast ballots isn't an overly long period of time so wouldn't support making any changes. That is merely MHO and YMMV.

I 100% agree that it isn't too long a period to have a two-week voting period, but why is it that the last couple motions have dragged out all the way to the end of the two-week period? I don't know the answer and you don't either, but if the final verdict on the motion can be found out sooner than the last minute, is that not a good thing?

I 100% agree that it isn't too long a period to have a two-week voting period, but why is it that the last couple motions have dragged out all the way to the end of the two-week period? I don't know the answer and you don't either, but if the final verdict on the motion can be found out sooner than the last minute, is that not a good thing?

We have 4 motions currently up for vote. Those results will be reported in the next week or so and I'm guessing that things may change subsequent to this. One way or another.

I 100% agree that it isn't too long a period to have a two-week voting period, but why is it that the last couple motions have dragged out all the way to the end of the two-week period? I don't know the answer and you don't either, but if the final verdict on the motion can be found out sooner than the last minute, is that not a good thing?

So if you feel that a two week voting period isn't too long why would waiting until the end of it be a bad thing?

Sorry but I'm unconvinced this was a problem that needed solving.

So if you feel that a two week voting period isn't too long why would waiting until the end of it be a bad thing?

Sorry but I'm unconvinced this was a problem that needed solving.

IMHO, it wasn't before. But it is now.

Jenbel pointed out up-thread that it has actually been a problem at least once before.

Some issues are settled in a day or two. Continuing active debate on that matter for 12 or 13 more days just because one TB member is out of pocket or slow or whatever is counter-productive.

For example, it is possible that THIS issue has been settled for some time. Yet you just spent time debating it. Wouldn't you prefer to know whether you were wasting your time or not, the same way I know whether I am wasting my time or not writing this post?

IMHO, it wasn't before. But it is now.

Jenbel pointed out up-thread that it has actually been a problem at least once before.

Some issues are settled in a day or two. Continuing active debate on that matter for 12 or 13 more days just because one TB member is out of pocket or slow or whatever is counter-productive.

For example, it is possible that THIS issue has been settled for some time. Yet you just spent time debating it. Wouldn't you prefer to know whether you were wasting your time or not, the same way I know whether I am wasting my time or not writing this post?

Or pouting. Don't forget about pouting.

Some issues are settled in a day or two. Continuing active debate on that matter for 12 or 13 more days just because one TB member is out of pocket or slow or whatever is counter-productive.

If increased TB productivity is the goal why even seek public input at all? Why not just eliminate that step in the process and go directly to balloting? And BTW just when did we start measuring TB productivity?

For example, it is possible that THIS issue has been settled for some time. Yet you just spent time debating it. Wouldn't you prefer to know whether you were wasting your time or not, the same way I know whether I am wasting my time or not writing this post?

Wouldn't be the first windmill I've tilted at and likely won't be the last.

Jenbel pointed out up-thread that it has actually been a problem at least once before.

Also, we had a situation about 2 years ago where a TB member dropped out without resigning. That caused at least 3 votes to run the full 2 weeks.

Wouldn't be the first windmill I've tilted at and likely won't be the last.
I hear ya! But one day a Mens forum will be reality. My buddy Sancho agrees with me.
^

Also, we had a situation about 2 years ago where a TB member dropped out without resigning. That caused at least 3 votes to run the full 2 weeks.

This would seem to be another problem that would need to be resolved. If a TB member drops out, the current protocol is to resign, but failing that, the process adopted needs to be enacted.

This would seem to be another problem that would need to be resolved. If a TB member drops out, the current protocol is to resign, but failing that, the process adopted needs to be enacted.But it they don't tell anyone they are "dropping out" how is the TB or anyone else supposed to know? Today, the mechanism in place is when they miss 3 consecutive votes. And when you add in this measure to report pass/fail results in real-time, then those three "missed" votes won't cause the same type of delays.

So this proposal already does help address a TB member who just "drops out".

But it they don't tell anyone they are "dropping out" how is the TB or anyone else supposed to know? Today, the mechanism in place is when they miss 3 consecutive votes. And when you add in this measure to report pass/fail results in real-time, then those three "missed" votes won't cause the same type of delays.

So this proposal already does help address a TB member who just "drops out".

Will results and vote times be disclosed as well?

I think the mechanism in place 3 strikes you're out is a good measure.. This motion passing TB decisions when majority is reached seems to be a nobrainer.

Will results and vote times be disclosed as well?Based on the current proposal being voted on, the only change is that when the needed votes to pass or fail a measure are met, the FT general membership will be notified. So no one outside the TB itself or FT management would know who voted or when until after the full two weeks are up. After the two weeks, the TB VP will notify the general membership of who voted and how.

But the general FT membership will NOT know when each TB member voted unless that TB member tells us. Which is exactly as things are today.

Or pouting. Don't forget about pouting.

Indeed. From what I gather from posts made on this and other threads one TB member has been throwing a temper tantrum for the past month and taking out his (or her) anger by punishing the general membership and keeping us waiting until the last minute to learn if a motion has passed or failed.

Clearly, TB consists of 8 adults and one spoiled little child (the exact kind you hate to find sitting near you on a long flight).

Indeed. From what I gather from posts made on this and other threads one TB member has been throwing a temper tantrum for the past month and taking out his (or her) anger by punishing the general membership and keeping us waiting until the last minute to learn if a motion has passed or failed.

Clearly, TB consists of 8 adults and one spoiled little child (the exact kind you hate to find sitting near you on a long flight).

;) I was pretty much thinking the same thing!

Based on the current proposal being voted on, the only change is that when the needed votes to pass or fail a measure are met, the FT general membership will be notified. So no one outside the TB itself or FT management would know who voted or when until after the full two weeks are up. After the two weeks, the TB VP will notify the general membership of who voted and how.

But the general FT membership will NOT know when each TB member voted unless that TB member tells us. Which is exactly as things are today.

Thanks.. the main thing is letting the FT membership know whether a motion has failed or passed. This is the material result.

Sounds moot releasing the information after, unless TB members are still able to vote after the verdict of a motion is disclosed.

Sounds moot releasing the information after, unless TB members are still able to vote after the verdict of a motion is disclosed.The TB members will have the same two weeks to vote that they have today. The only material change is that the general FT membership will know in "real-time" when there are enough votes to pass/fail the measure.

And given that motions are re-voted on at later dates (just look at the various counting post motions over the last few years), compiling every TB members vote is still valuable information. And also come TB election time, people may want to know how specific TB members voted. As how a TB member votes on various motions could effect who votes for whom during an election.

So even if the decision of this motion has been decided, we still want to have every TB members votes counted for every motion.

Indeed. From what I gather from posts made on this and other threads one TB member has been throwing a temper tantrum for the past month and taking out his (or her) anger by punishing the general membership and keeping us waiting until the last minute to learn if a motion has passed or failed.

Clearly, TB consists of 8 adults and one spoiled little child (the exact kind you hate to find sitting near you on a long flight).

IF that is the case, this proposal will fix it. ^

I hear ya! But one day a Mens forum will be reality. My buddy Sancho agrees with me.
^

I'll support action to remove the women's forum if it is proposed. Most topics are relatively gender-neutral anyways.

Don't you often wonder about cute but comfortable shoes for travel? :p

Back on topic, however... Many of those who want to engage in discussion about a particular topic I suspect will do so regardless of the current 'real time' situation, just as some continue to discuss topics after votes have ended. Just because a trip ends doesn't mean we don't discuss it after the fact, for instance.

I tend to agree with hhoope01 as well about the potential future impact of such discussion.

The TB members will have the same two weeks to vote that they have today. The only material change is that the general FT membership will know in "real-time" when there are enough votes to pass/fail the measure.

And given that motions are re-voted on at later dates (just look at the various counting post motions over the last few years), compiling every TB members vote is still valuable information. And also come TB election time, people may want to know how specific TB members voted. As how a TB member votes on various motions could effect who votes for whom during an election.

So even if the decision of this motion has been decided, we still want to have every TB members votes counted for every motion.

The real time factor revealing a majority decision is good.. although moot, the majority decision may affect the subsequent TB members' vote thereafter. It could be material to some that this factor exists. This would be an argument to have the process remain status quo.

The real time factor revealing a majority decision is good.. although moot, the majority decision may affect the subsequent TB members' vote thereafter. It could be material to some that this factor exists. This would be an argument to have the process remain status quo.

Don't forget that subsequent TB members already know not only if a motion has passed/failed but also how each member voted. From the moment that a poll opens, as each member casts his ballot other TB members are informed of which way he voted.

If a subsequent TB member is going to allow these votes to determine his own, that would be the case with or without this measure.

Dovster is correct - This motion makes absolutely zero change through the eyes of a TB member, as they can already see in their voting thread who has voted, how they voted, and whether or not a motion will pass (unless it is a down-to-the-wire vote with the score being 5 yea to 3 nay).

The only change is on the public side of things, and also on Sharon's part to post the pass/fail as soon as it is known (i.e. 6 yea or 4 nay).

On February 14, 2012, Talkboard passed 6-3:

The TalkBoard guidelines will be amended as follows:

D. Public Notice Procedures
i. Once a motion has been put before TalkBoard for a vote the Vice President/Secretary shall post a new thread in the public TalkBoard Topics forum announcing the vote along with the voting end date as quickly as feasible. Once that thread is posted, the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary will submit a request to the FlyerTalk Host or representative to create an site-wide announcment of the vote with a link to the discussion/voting thread in the TalkBoard Topics Forum. The Announcement will be available until either voting is completed and a decision is made or the voting period ends.
ii. Motions on topics related to the internal administration of TalkBoard as determined by the President and some topics requested for discussion or input by the FlyerTalk Host will be exempted from this public posting requirement.
iii. The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.
iv. Once an active motion has received sufficient Yes votes for approval or sufficient No votes that approval is not possible, the Vice President/Secretary or the President shall post this fact in the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote.
[strike]iv.[strike]v. Once voting is completed and the TalkBoard President has formally announced the results of the vote in the TalkBoard forum the Vice President/Secretary shall announce the full results of the roll call vote in
a. the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote
b. a new thread in the Town Hall forum.

Voting yes: Cholula, jackal, kokonutz, nsx, RichMSN, SkiAdcock
Voting no: bhatnasx, goalie, Spiff

Good to see it passed.

Good to see it passed.

Agreed. The only problem I foresee is if Al Gore runs for TB President, his opponent gets 6 votes, and Al demands that nothing be announced officially until he determines that all 6 people actually understood the voting process. :D

Agreed. The only problem I foresee is if Al Gore runs for TB President, his opponent gets 6 votes, and Al demands that nothing be announced officially until he determines that all 6 people actually understood the voting process. :D

Luckily he invented the internet, so he can change it however he pleases. ;)

Glad to see that it passed!

On February 14, 2012, Talkboard passed 6-3:

The TalkBoard guidelines will be amended as follows:

D. Public Notice Procedures
i. Once a motion has been put before TalkBoard for a vote the Vice President/Secretary shall post a new thread in the public TalkBoard Topics forum announcing the vote along with the voting end date as quickly as feasible. Once that thread is posted, the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary will submit a request to the FlyerTalk Host or representative to create an site-wide announcment of the vote with a link to the discussion/voting thread in the TalkBoard Topics Forum. The Announcement will be available until either voting is completed and a decision is made or the voting period ends.
ii. Motions on topics related to the internal administration of TalkBoard as determined by the President and some topics requested for discussion or input by the FlyerTalk Host will be exempted from this public posting requirement.
iii. The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.
iv. Once an active motion has received sufficient Yes votes for approval or sufficient No votes that approval is not possible, the Vice President/Secretary or the President shall post this fact in the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote.
[strike]iv.[strike]v. Once voting is completed and the TalkBoard President has formally announced the results of the vote in the TalkBoard forum the Vice President/Secretary shall announce the full results of the roll call vote in
a. the public TalkBoard Topics thread announcing the vote
b. a new thread in the Town Hall forum.

Voting yes: Cholula, jackal, kokonutz, nsx, RichMSN, SkiAdcock
Voting no: bhatnasx, goalie, Spiff

^^ Good news!

Glad to see that it passed!

Me too! If only it had passed long before it passed, we would have had a far smoother winter, imho.

Going forward, I am pleased that slow-voting TB members will not end up keeping the posters in the dark once an issue is no longer in doubt, whether they were doing it on purpose or not. ^

While I voted yes, it was a reluctant yes.

I was never that supportive of this because I thought it was a solution in search of a problem - and I don't think the problem of actually waiting until the end of 2 weeks to find out vote results is very onorous. :rolleyes:

I also thought it did a disservice to FTers and TB members as though what they thought or voted didn't matter just because the input or vote didn't happen by the time 6 others did.

Also, one reason given by my esteemed friend koko is this will put to bed/let threads drop down because then there will won't be any discussion post-announcement. I disagree - we're talking FTers & they'll always discuss afterwards (on the controversial ones especially). :p :D

But since some folk were hot to trot on this & the recent delay of votes (which didn't happen last year) bothered me, I voted for it.

Cheers.

While I voted yes, it was a reluctant yes.

I was never that supportive of this because I thought it was a solution in search of a problem - and I don't think the problem of actually waiting until the end of 2 weeks to find out vote results is very onorous. :rolleyes:

I also thought it did a disservice to FTers and TB members as though what they thought or voted didn't matter just because the input or vote didn't happen by the time 6 others did.

Also, one reason given by my esteemed friend koko is this will put to bed/let threads drop down because then there will won't be any discussion post-announcement. I disagree - we're talking FTers & they'll always discuss afterwards (on the controversial ones especially). :p :D

But since some folk were hot to trot on this & the recent delay of votes (which didn't happen last year) bothered me, I voted for it.

Cheers.

I'm glad you did. :)

Agreed. The only problem I foresee is if Al Gore runs for TB President, his opponent gets 6 votes, and Al demands that nothing be announced officially until he determines that all 6 people actually understood the voting process. :D

Is Al gore a nickname for a certain TB member? :confused: