hhoope01

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

RichMSN

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

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

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

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

nsx

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

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

We need to be careful about changing established and working systems.

kipper

Perhaps, at a minimum, the TB VP could, once a day, post an update of voting on the comments thread? That wouldn't be perfect, and isn't really what I think should happen, but if due to software limitations, it would require maintaining the status quo, conducting votes off-site, or keeping everything hidden until the last vote is cast, perhaps the TB VP option is a decent stop-gap. It doesn't change too much.

SkiAdcock

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers.

kokonutz

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

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

essxjay

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

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

Q Shoe Guy

An excellent post !

GUWonder

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

jackal

Agree.

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

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

ewrfox

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