TalkBoard Topics - Suggestion: mandatory consultation period in advance of a tabling motion

I would like to suggest an amendment to the voting protocol which will ensure members are given sufficient time to absorb proposals and provide feedback to motions in advance of the current two week voting period.

The purpose of this is give members an opportunity to engage with TB before a motion is formally tabled, and also to give TB sufficient time to consider those views posted by general members before votes are cast. In practice, this won't introduce too great a change as most motions are developed from suggestions and proposals offered up by general members. However it does seek to prevent the theoretical situation occuring whereby TB table a motion and immediately proceeds to vote without first taking cognisance of member feedback.

I would suggest a mandatory 2 to 4 week consultation period.

For some, the 2 week voting period seems to be too long. I don't know that adding at least 2 weeks before it makes much sense. As it is, like you said, most times, there is discussion of something before a motion is made, and members have a chance to voice their opinion then. I don't see TalkBoard pushing a vote through without at least some period of member comment.

Isn't there usually lengthy conversation before a motion is even made?

However, I completely disagree - the voting length of time is more than adequate at 2 weeks.

No one is forcing a TB member to vote immediately - they know exactly where the vote process stands.

The principle objective is to ensure an opportunity of consultation take place before voting begins.

The secondary point relates to its duration. A reasonable period of time (whether that be 2 weeks, 4 weeks or more). I'm sure an optimum period of time can be agreed.

There already are 2 weeks. If a TB member chooses to vote immediately, that's his option - and it's ours to remember that they're not listening to their constituents at election time.

There are several, if not all, TB members who announce their vote as soon as they make it. Some even announce they're going to wait.

Dragging these things on longer isn't necessary, IMHO. This isn't a US presidential election, you know :D

The principle objective is to ensure an opportunity of consultation take place before voting begins.

The secondary point relates to its duration. A reasonable period of time (whether that be 2 weeks, 4 weeks or more). I'm sure an optimum period of time can be agreed.

I already think things drag on too much. No way I can be convinced to add even more time to the process.

I would like to suggest an amendment to the voting protocol which will ensure members are given sufficient time to absorb proposals and provide feedback to motions in advance of the current two week voting period.

The purpose of this is give members an opportunity to engage with TB before a motion is formally tabled, and also to give TB sufficient time to consider those views posted by general members before votes are cast. In practice, this won't introduce too great a change as most motions are developed from suggestions and proposals offered up by general members. However it does seek to prevent the theoretical situation occuring whereby TB table a motion and immediately proceeds to vote without first taking cognisance of member feedback.

I would suggest a mandatory 2 to 4 week consultation period.
'Table a motion' means different (opposite, actually) things in the US than in the UK.

So it's usually more clear to say 'make a motion' or 'kill a motion.' ;)@:-)

The TB Guidelines already call for a 48-hour discussion period before any motion can be made about a matter:

B. Motions and Seconds
i. Any member of the TalkBoard can raise a topic regarding any issue that falls under the above stated mission of the TalkBoard either in the public TalkBoard Topics forum or in the private TalkBoard forum.
ii. A minumim of 48 hours must elapse after a topic has been raised by a TalkBoard member either in the public TalkBoard Topics forum or in the private TalkBoard forum, before any member of the TalkBoard can make a motion regarding that issue.
iii. Points of order regarding whether a proposed motion falls within the purview of the TalkBoard shall be ruled upon by the President based on these guidelines and the FlyerTalk Terms of Service with the advice of the FlyerTalk Host.
iv. Any member of the TalkBoard can second a motion.

I believe that is sufficient.

Often things that come to motion are based on threads/suggestions started in public TB forum and discussed before it's ever made a motion, so TB members are familiar w/ FTers' thoughts on the matter. In addition, a public notice is given at the top of FT when motions are being considered by TB, in order to provide visibility for what's being discussed so FTers know & can go to provide their input during the voting process.

I've found that most TB members don't vote on something immediately. Some might because they've gotten a lot of input before the vote started. Some do so for the same reason & know they'll be traveling, so want to get their vote in. Or they have preset thoughts & it won't matter what the timeframe. Some vote a few days into the process. Some wait to consider additional input if they're truly undecided on something & might not vote until way into the timeframe. Some wait just to wait.

I don't see this proposal changing any of that.

Cheers.

Often things that come to motion are based on threads/suggestions started in public TB forum and discussed before it's ever made a motion, so TB members are familiar w/ FTers' thoughts on the matter. In addition, a public notice is given at the top of FT when motions are being considered by TB, in order to provide visibility for what's being discussed so FTers know & can go to provide their input during the voting process.

I've found that most TB members don't vote on something immediately. Some might because they've gotten a lot of input before the vote started. Some do so for the same reason & know they'll be traveling, so want to get their vote in. Or they have preset thoughts & it won't matter what the timeframe. Some vote a few days into the process. Some wait to consider additional input if they're truly undecided on something & might not vote until way into the timeframe. Some wait just to wait.

I don't see this proposal changing any of that.

Cheers.

TalkBoard knows best. :td:

TalkBoard knows best. :td:

Not sure what you mean by this. :confused:

As a former TB member, if you'd care to share your thoughts on why you'd think Prospero's idea would work or not work, I'd be interested in hearing them.

Cheers.

TalkBoard knows best. :td:

I don't get this, to be honest. I read the post from Prospero and I disagree with it. I wouldn't support such a thing. I think the process is too drawn out as it is.

So that deserves a thumbs down?

I appreciate the responses to my musings thus far.

Allow me to give an example of where I am coming from.

Place yourself in the shoes of a member who does not subscribe to this forum or follows it closely on a regular basis. I suspect there are more than one or two members who fall into this camp. The first inkling they get of TB activity is the cross forum announcement. However, as this announcement is timed to coincide with the kick-off of TB's voting period, it is a little late in the process for members to fully engage with TB on live motions. By that time the motion is cast in stone and several TB members may have already cast their vote.

So perhaps a short consultation period may pay dividends if inserted between the time of the forum announcement and voting period. The announcement may refer to a draft proposal under consideration which TB can develop into a firm proposal after the consultation period has ended and then advance as a motion.

I think it is fair to say there was great expectations that the announcements would draw the broad church towards this forum and generate greater discussion but I'm not so sure this is happening at the moment.

I think it is fair to say there was great expectations that the announcements would draw the broad church towards this forum and generate greater discussion but I'm not so sure this is happening at the moment.

And given your scenario I still don't see that happening, as there's not going to be a public announcement that there's a consultant period between already-started discussions & motions. So do you seriously think someone who might not be aware of TB is suddenly going to stumble across it if the timeframe is longer? (I mean that legit, not snarky).

BTW - IMO you do a disservice to those FTers who do participate on TB & in the suggestions/discussions forums before something ever gets to a motion by implying that those who are coming on later would provide more or different input than the mixture of input already gotten, or substantially different.

FWIW - I've found that on TB motions (during my 15 months) that it's rare for TB members to vote straight out of the chute.

Cheers.

Oh dear! I'm no longer sure if i'm doing the right thing wrong or if i'm doing the wrong thing right. :confused:

Oh dear! I'm no longer sure if i'm doing the right thing wrong or if i'm doing the wrong thing right. :confused:

:D :D

Been there, done that!

Cheers.

I'll say that I'm kind of in agreement with RichMSN--the process already takes a long time, and adding time to that is not something I think would be beneficial to the membership.

It seems somewhat applicable here, also, so I'll quote the post I just made in a related TalkBoard Topics thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1314642-suggestion-change-talkboard-voting-proccess.html):

I would be willing to consider modifying the current requirement to state that the existing 48-hour waiting period begins after the announcement in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is posted (current verbiage states that the 48-hour waiting period begins when the topic is first introduced in either the public or private TalkBoard forums). This would encourage (actually, require) TalkBoard members to post ideas in the public forum for review and comment rather than completing all of the business behind closed doors, which is a good thing, IMHO.

I don't think requiring a global announcement for every missive or idea that a TalkBoard member has is necessary and will result in announcement overkill.

I absolutely, positively, 100% oppose any motion that would impose a quiet period where members are restricted from commenting on a proposal after a certain date. It's a horrible idea for this type of non-real-time environment (where some people may not even be able to reach a computer to read and comment within whatever timeframe is allotted), and it's completely unenforceable (what's to stop someone from simply starting a new thread in TalkBoard Topics or even elsewhere on FT?). Why anyone would consider silencing the voices of the membership is completely beyond me.