SkiAdcock

And as someone who participated in 49 votes in 4 years, not all went quickly. Nor does that mean because some did this year that all future votes will go snap, boom, fast. It also ignores the fact that motions aren't done in a vacuum & often input is provided before motion stage.

Cheers.

tcook052

Sorry but you can't infer that simply because a past TB felt they didn't need to wait the full two week voting period if a lone hold out hadn't cast their ballot but enough others had voted to adopt or reject a motion that it means the majority voted in under 24 hours. All that can be inferred is that TB didn't want to wait until the last person cast their ballot.

There hasn't been snap voting since the motion's adoption in 2012 so it's a more recent trend. It has however become a trend and one that can be corrected by building in a 48 - 72 hour waiting period before balloting opens.

kokonutz

I don't know exactly how quickly TB members voted in the past. But i do recall some votes being 'decided' very quickly even though the last person to vote did not vote until much later than the number of votes needed was achieved.

And I remember it well, because it made me very frustrated to see folks still banging away at an issue in this forum for days and days after the decision had already been made in the private TB forum. Frustrated enough that we implemented the new system of announcing the result as soon as the threshold is achieved. @:-)

It could also be corrected by TB member patience and discretion. But as i have said, I'm cool with either approach.

I think the new TB session housekeeping is finally winding down, so hopefully we can address this issue soon.

MSPeconomist

I think a mandatory 72 hour waiting period is a good first step, but I fear that the people who are eager to vote as quickly as possible might not read any input before voting at exactly 72 hours if they've already made up their minds. We can force the wait, but we can't force people to use the time to consider further input or even take some time to think about whether the motion would be good for FT.

Nevertheless, I'm definitely in favor of a required waiting period as well as the required site wide announcement to give people a chance to provide input on the specific motion. Earlier discussion on the general issue doesn't address the specific details of the final proposal which is being put up for the vote.

CMK10

Being eager to vote does not mean someone hasn't though their vote through and isn't voting based on their feelings, their research, and based on the best interest of Flyertalk.

Just like waiting to vote longer does not necessarily mean that person spent more time thinking about it or is acting more in the interest of Flyertalk.

Length of time waiting to vote, whether it's a lot or a little, is not a factor in a good vote. By your logic, someone who votes in a November election at the last minute is somehow casting a better vote than someone who uses early voting.

tom911

That says it all - some members know how they're going to vote before the voting/discussion period and you won't change that. Here's one Talk Board member who voted 15 minutes after voting opened on access restrictions for Coupon Connection:

tom911

It does give the appearance, though, that you are at least reading the comments members post in the thread. If a motion passes in 17 hours, or even in a day or two, that's not a lot of time for members to comment, whether you intend to read their comments or not before you vote. I, as a member, have some expectation that my comments will be read if I take time to post something on the topic at hand.

dchristiva

Exactly this. ^

kipper

If TB knows how they will vote before a vote is announced, why bother having a thread on each vote then?

MSPeconomist

Please. Not all of us on TB feel this way or behave this way. My SOP on TB has been to wait to see if further input appears and then to go back and re-read the arguments in the entire applicable threads before making a final decision on how I will vote.

kipper

I know not everyone on TB feels or behaves that way. I do find it disturbing that some apparently feel they should vote ASAP, rather than taking time to consider opinions and issues that may be discussed once an announcement is made public.

kokonutz

Thinking about making this motion today:

The TalkBoard recommends the following amendments to the TalkBoard Guidelines:

C. Voting Procedures
i. Once a motion has been made and seconded and all aspects of the Public Notice Procedures in Section D. below have been completed, not sooner than 48 hours later the President shall post a sticky poll thread in the TalkBoard forum calling the question and announcing the vote. The thread shall be titled "Vote: [summary of motion]". In the first post on the sticky poll thread the President shall post the maker and seconder of the motion as well as the voting deadline and then restate the motion that has been made and seconded.

and

D. Public Notice Procedures
i. Once a motion has been made and seconded 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 announcement 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.

MSPeconomist

I certainly agree. In fact, before the specific motion is posted, the discussion necessarily concerns generalities about the concept. It's only after people see a specific motion that they can react to the details--details that can make a very big difference.

MSPeconomist

I think 72 hours would be better. To expect a bunch of people who travel a lot to respond within 48 hours doesn't seem to allow them much time to reflect before posting about proposed motions. We'd rather get carefully considered detailed feedback than quick instant reactions.

dchristiva

That's not what I said. At all. Nor did I reference voting "ASAP".