Good feedback so far and I have a couple of additional thoughts on what has been said in response thus far. (I am clipping the parts of posts that I quote to reference only that part to which I am replying. No disrespect intended)
Originally Posted by
Jenbel
As an elected body, sometimes it's hard to say no to members - no matter how few. I think it's something we need to get better at.
This I see too as an inherent problem to being human.
That said, I know of at least one of you who is in instructor and I suspect several of you have conducted trainings. I think that regardless of how hard it may be, FT as a whole relies on that kind of decision also being able to be handed down when needed. It may never feel right to you as people, but in your roles as TB members it is part of your responsibility and we know that. Fear not our frustration, we are human too. More importantly though with respect the No's and Yes's being handed down, we are FTers.
Originally Posted by
Spiff
I think it's a good plan overall, mjm.
However, as soon as a forum is put 'on notice', the number of junk posts and threads is probably going to go through the roof.
I think that any inspection of an underperforming forum should be done with less notice, if any, to prevent a "save this forum!" post/thread-padding spree.
I do not disagree with this line of thinking at all. What I would suggest however is that somebody will always be fast enough to stir up a campaign against a decision they do not favor. In such a case, in line with what I wrote immediately above and in the original post, it will be your collective task to look at the big picture and make the call. It may raise the ire of some, but it is a communal sandbox and we cannot stay angry forever. A time limit will be a good way to head off some of the "but, but, but" posts though. Either you are there to be relied on or there is no need for TB. I think the latter is nobody's opinion.
Originally Posted by
NickB
First and foremost, imo, fragmentation:....
I think this is the single best reason against keeping non-performing fora I can think of. Profitability is not derived from a product line so wide it causes shoppers to go elsewhere for lack of ability to find what they want easily.
That said, I see nearly none of the SIT fora as making FT too diverse. It is a hard balance to strike. I have no ready answer for the best mix of fora, but I do see that if the general TB vote at any given time and according to procedure is to eliminate a forum and incorporate its contents into another forum, we have done the best we can as a democratic group of BB subscribers.
Originally Posted by
BiziBB
...I don't know about you but TB seems to have a tough job in that it is usually the 'bad cop' with regards to disenfranchising a group at the request of another group on FT.
.....
What do you think of an automatic review of every new forum, timed to coincide with its first birthday? ....
.....
.....
I hope these suggestions are helpful.
I agree TB has a tough job and often gets to play bad cop. I do believe however that this is part of what they take on when signing up for the job. They all have been around long enough to see some ups and some downs. Some arguments and some resolutions. Hopefully they all can see the forest for the trees and we can rely on a positive balance of good decisions. The automatic review I think would cause too many of the types of posts that Spiff refers to earlier in this thread. If a bitter pill is to be taken, best to take it and get on with it instead of letting it become a screaming match between people at the last minute.
I see this process of closure to be key to a lot of progress that has been perhaps restrained a bit lately. I appreciate all the people on and off TB taking time to get something formally organized in this respect. ^
Mike