Suggestions for TalkBoard voting process - announcements and stand-down period
Dec 11, 2014, 8:07 am
#46
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Either at the shooting range or anywhere good beer can be found...
Posts: 51,048
That is incorrect. As a TB member I voted 49 times on motions. Some votes went relatively quickly, some went the middle, some went the full two weeks.
Motions are not done in a vacuum. There is discussion in the public forum prior to a motion. We do seek input, which is why there is a sitewide announcement on motions (premium fare aside re: announcement). Sometimes we get input when the sitewide announcement is made. Sometimes we don't get input or very little, even with a sitewide announcement.
Cheers.
Motions are not done in a vacuum. There is discussion in the public forum prior to a motion. We do seek input, which is why there is a sitewide announcement on motions (premium fare aside re: announcement). Sometimes we get input when the sitewide announcement is made. Sometimes we don't get input or very little, even with a sitewide announcement.
Cheers.
Why shouldn't there be a delay between the posting of the sitewide announcement and voting? Wouldn't that allow for even more input?
Dec 11, 2014, 8:46 am
#47
Flyertalk Evangelist and Moderator: Coupon Connection and Travel Products
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milton, GA USA
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum Elite, Hyatt Discoverist, Radisson Elite
Posts: 19,040
At the end of the day, we have to trust that our elected members are representing the interests of their constituents.
I see no reason to change the current process; people who want to provide input have a tendency to do it early on. Why delay a vote? Takes long enough to get some things through the process... why add to the timing?
I support the status quo.
I see no reason to change the current process; people who want to provide input have a tendency to do it early on. Why delay a vote? Takes long enough to get some things through the process... why add to the timing?
I support the status quo.
Last edited by wharvey; Dec 12, 2014 at 8:34 am
Dec 11, 2014, 8:48 am
#48
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
No, most TalkBoard members stay active in the private and public forums and are able to vote based on what they consider to be in the best interests of Flyertalk
Dec 11, 2014, 12:48 pm
#49
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Respectfully goalie, I think you've misinterpreted the above. First, the quickly & feasible verbiage you're taking umbrage with has been in the guidelines for several years - including the entire time you served on TB 
It's referring to when a motion has been made & seconded the VP will create a new thread in the public forum (as has always been done) as quickly & feasibly as possible. The quickly & feasibly refers to the fact that the VP might not be on FT the moment the seconding of the motion happens (could be asleep, could be at work, could be on a plane).
Once that is done, the VP notifies the CD of the fact & asks the CD to make a site-wide announcement, providing a link to the thread in the public forum.
What koko is suggesting is that the guidelines be amended so that voting/poll in the private forum not be implemented until after the sitewide announcement has gone up, which is different than the current procedure.
goalie, you served on TB for 3-1/2 years. You know it's not the norm for votes to conclude within 24 hours of the start. You also know that motions aren't done in a vacuum, that discussions both on the public & private forums have preceded them.
This is attempting to address what happened with the premium fares forum situation without going overboard in response.
Cheers.
It's referring to when a motion has been made & seconded the VP will create a new thread in the public forum (as has always been done) as quickly & feasibly as possible. The quickly & feasibly refers to the fact that the VP might not be on FT the moment the seconding of the motion happens (could be asleep, could be at work, could be on a plane).
Once that is done, the VP notifies the CD of the fact & asks the CD to make a site-wide announcement, providing a link to the thread in the public forum.
What koko is suggesting is that the guidelines be amended so that voting/poll in the private forum not be implemented until after the sitewide announcement has gone up, which is different than the current procedure.
goalie, you served on TB for 3-1/2 years. You know it's not the norm for votes to conclude within 24 hours of the start. You also know that motions aren't done in a vacuum, that discussions both on the public & private forums have preceded them.
This is attempting to address what happened with the premium fares forum situation without going overboard in response.
Cheers.
and yes, I do know that folks are not on F/T all the time (double ) so respectfully, please lay off the belittling. What I do have a problem with is the vagueness as with vagueness, you end up having problems with the interpretation of such. Does "as quickly as feasible" (using your above examples of sleeping, on a plane, work, etc) mean 1 day, two days, a week, 2 weeks and etc and if there is going to be a delay, then something needs to be in place so that the system functions smoothly. For example, if the CD is unavailable for <insert time period here>, then someone else needs to have the authority to perform the task and then the voting poll can be posted.
Dec 11, 2014, 1:01 pm
#50
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
Something? I think you must mean some things as the creation of the Premium Fares forum was definitely not a long enough process which is why TB is looking at slowing the voting process down a little. Building in a few day balloting ban within the existing two week time frame for TB voting to take place is also not adding to the timing to my view though YMMV.
Dec 12, 2014, 8:42 am
#51
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,107
Thanks telling me something I didn't know (NOT) and yes, I do know that folks are not on F/T all the time (double ) so respectfully, please lay off the belittling. What I do have a problem with is the vagueness as with vagueness, you end up having problems with the interpretation of such. Does "as quickly as feasible" (using your above examples of sleeping, on a plane, work, etc) mean 1 day, two days, a week, 2 weeks and etc and if there is going to be a delay, then something needs to be in place so that the system functions smoothly. For example, if the CD is unavailable for <insert time period here>, then someone else needs to have the authority to perform the task and then the voting poll can be posted.
and yes, I do know that folks are not on F/T all the time (double ) so respectfully, please lay off the belittling. What I do have a problem with is the vagueness as with vagueness, you end up having problems with the interpretation of such. Does "as quickly as feasible" (using your above examples of sleeping, on a plane, work, etc) mean 1 day, two days, a week, 2 weeks and etc and if there is going to be a delay, then something needs to be in place so that the system functions smoothly. For example, if the CD is unavailable for <insert time period here>, then someone else needs to have the authority to perform the task and then the voting poll can be posted.And while the CD is not available 24/7, she normally gets the announcement up pretty quickly. However, this allows some leeway for her schedule. However, the information re: the motion will have already been posted in the public forum so even before she gets the announcement up FTers can provide input. The sitewide announcement augments that.
The change suggested by koko/TB is that voting will not commence until after the CD makes the sitewide announcement (which was some FTers issue w/ the premium fares subforum); the change attempts to address that without going overboard in a response to something that's not the norm.
Cheers.
Dec 12, 2014, 9:44 am
#52
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
While the most feedback on snap TB voting resulted from the Premium Fares forum creation motion I'll remind members that it wasn't the only case but one of three occasions out of a grand total of 4 motions this calendar year where less than 24 hours elapsed between motion announcement and it securing enough votes to be adopted, the others being the creation of a USA destination fourm and the creation of a Citibank/Thank You Rewards forum. Snap voting has become the new TB norm and I see nothing wrong with building in a small 48-72 hour cooling off period within the existing two week TB timeframe for balloting.
Dec 12, 2014, 10:23 am
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,404
While the most feedback on snap TB voting resulted from the Premium Fares forum creation motion I'll remind members that it wasn't the only case but one of three occasions out of a grand total of 4 motions this calendar year where less than 24 hours elapsed between motion announcement and it securing enough votes to be adopted, the others being the creation of a USA destination fourm and the creation of a Citibank/Thank You Rewards forum. Snap voting has become the new TB norm and I see nothing wrong with building in a small 48-72 hour cooling off period within the existing two week TB timeframe for balloting.
In the case ot the new Citi forum, I questioned what the proper name of the new forum should be [Citi or Citibank or CitiBank? Thank You Points or Thank You Rewards?] and the motion [did we hhave a friendly amendment or not?] on this wasn't clarified until after most (other) people had voted.
I've been very concerned by the pressure to rush to vote as quickly as possible on TB but I don't think I can go beyond stating my own opinion on this.
Dec 12, 2014, 12:35 pm
#54
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
The only pressure that I've seen exerted is when a vote is at 8-0 and a lone holdout waits to vote which at that point is delaying the inevitable. In fact, it's TalkBoard practice to not send a PM to someone who hasn't voted.
Dec 12, 2014, 12:41 pm
#55
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,404
To repeat, my experience and my opinion is that there *is* pressure to vote very quickly and it's inappropriate. I did not say that the pressure was necessarily in the form of PMs and I did not claim that it's TB practice to send a PM to someone who hasn't voted.
Dec 12, 2014, 12:50 pm
#56
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
Dec 12, 2014, 2:56 pm
#57
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: LHR- ish
Programs: MUCCI, BA Blue
Posts: 4,295
Why have a consultation if people aren't obliged to pay any attention to it before voting? It runs the risk of becoming a window dressing waste of everyone's time - and it's certainly liable to be seen that way.
Dec 13, 2014, 11:37 am
#58
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,107
In my 49 votes on TB, voting concluded sometimes quickly, sometimes after a week, and sometimes the full two weeks. This year we didn't have as many votes and a few went more quickly. That, by the way, does not mean the decisions were wrong. It also does not mean that every vote in the future will happen quickly. Really depends on what is being considered & how much discussion was done beforehand or how much input is provided after the sitewide announcement.
BTW - sitewide announcements have gone up in the past & very little input has been provided on some of the motions. So having a sitewide announcement & a delay does not mean record #s of FTers are suddenly going to flock to TB to provide input. But amending the guidelines a tad helps to ensure they have additional opportunity, even if they choose not to do so.
Cheers.
Dec 15, 2014, 8:31 am
#59
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
Dec 15, 2014, 9:41 am
#60
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,607
The decision was made to announce when the votes to pass or fail were achieved was made specifically because often the result of a vote was made quickly, but the last TBer had not voted yet, leaving posters to debate and provide input on a decision that was, for all intents and purposes, already made.
Not that this makes anyone feel better.