First, to the point about this idea coming to the you, the non-TB member's attention, as a full-blown proposal: The TB has (imho stupid) secrecy rules that prevent us from talking about things that are being talked about in the private forum unless that idea is entirely our own. Since this idea came out of the Phoenix TB meeting as a 'group idea' any talk about it or request for poster input about it in this forum would open that TB member up to accusations of violating the secrecy policy by other TB members. That being the case, the only way to get this idea in front of posters for a full and frank discussion (as opposed to the discussion that took place in the Phoenix thread where everyone had to guess what the concept was about) was for a motion and a second, followed by the TB Vice President/Secretary (Spiff, currently) posting the motion and second in the public forum. If the private TB forum were open on a read-only basis, the TB's hands wouldnt have been tied on the ways that posters like you could have found out what we were talking about and considering. Alas.

As for the reaction to the proposal, it makes me a little sad, particularly the response from many people who have he word 'moderator' under their handle. I really liked what Canarsie said about volunteering to become a moderator: "I volunteered to become a FlyerTalk moderator years ago primarily to give back to the FlyerTalk community in return for all that I have benefited from the community." That is exactly what this concept is all about. Look, not everyone is cut out to be a moderator. Maybe they ran afoul of the TOS early in their posting career. Maybe they just dont have the time or effort to commit to log in every day to kill spam and police posts. But they still want to give back to the community. Why not let folks like that don a 'safety patrol' or 'greeter' badge and continue to be an identifiable welcoming presence for FT ? Why all the concern over such a thing? These folks will have NO power or authority. Just an acknowledgement that they are available and willing to help out or answer a "stupid question" that someone might not feel comfortable posting and that they will continue to try to post in a positive, welcoming fashion.

As to the identification and selection process, well, I guess we could make a secret self-selection process like the moderators have. But I'm for a more open and transparent process. One where the criteria and entry traits are well known and publicized. That is, after all, the point: to try and encourage and reward such behavior.

nsx's idea of making such identification local is a good one, but the TOS clearly prohibits talking about other FTers. The TB has a little more latitude in our secret forum so it gives us the ability to vet potential ambassadors. Would that become a 'political' process? I guess, but no more or less so than the selection of moderators. And at least if you don't like who the TB is making ambassadors you can throw the rascals out at the next election. Making things political in that sense is actually a very GOOD thing: it creates accountability to the posters. And ultimately gives control of this selection process to the posters themselves. @:-)

Anyway, I guess I just encourage everyone to take a step back from this proposal and think about it in terms of 'what is best for FT' and work backwards from there rather than starting from the perspective of 'how would this affect me personally?' And if folks have a better way to implement this program now that we are 'allowed' to talk about it in public that assures openness, transparency and accountability then I for one am all ears; I certainly can't think of one myself.