Re-invigorating the Talk Board
 

Randy, you set TB up and established the ground rules. That means you're the one to ask to change them.

I don't know if you've noticed that TB hasn't started or concluded a single vote in more than three months. Furthermore, if you look at the actions that TB actually passed (and didn't later rescind) in 2010, they pretty much fall into three categories:

1. Merging/creating/deleting forums due to underlying changes in those programs, something that generally could be done on autopilot.

2. Internal minor or obvious TB structural and procedural changes.

3. Approving charities (actually only one).

If TB is to be effective, it's time that the rules be changed to make TB more decisive. Experiments that fail can readily be undone, and TB motions are just suggestions to you in any case, so there are
plenty of protections in place.

I propose you change TB starting with the next term so that it

a. Contains 7, rather than 9, members, to reduce excessive debate.

b. Reaches decisions by majority, rather than 2/3, vote.

In summary, I am suggesting that as FT has matured, it is the structure rather than the membership of TB that increasingly has made TB become ineffective.

Thanks!

While I have no material feedback on the rest of your post, it is worth noting that this responsibility no longer rests on Talk Board.

OK, thanks.

The reason for suggesting the size reduction is that I have seen similar gridlock on my local city council largely because it has 9 members as well -- although they still decide by majority vote, at least!

OP, what has TB has failed to do for the past three months?

My sense is that this ad hoc committee is simply at present laying fallow but I admit to perhaps missing your point. I share your perception that the board -- and all of FT, incidentally -- has reached a state of structural maturity, but I'm not seeing how this stage necessarily implies calcification of the member elected representative body.

Take for example, the one semi-controversial item the TB spent time on this year. First it passed a motion declaring that its "sense" was to do something. Then it passed a motion doing something. Then it passed a motion undoing the previous one. Then it finally tried another motion to do something, which failed.

It almost doesn't matter what the topic was, doesn't that sound a lot like gridlock?

Let's consult the literature! Fortunately, the master, C. Northcote Parkinson, has written extensively on committees:

From PARKINSON'S LAW AND OTHER STUDIES IN ADMINISTRATION by C. Northcote Parkinson, Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1957

Perhaps it is too late as really what the talk board should be for is providing checks and balances. With out this, there can be no reform of the cabals that now dominate FT. Cheers

Some might agree with that question and some might not. Heck some might even go on record voicing their agreement only to later reconsider and instead disagree with it.

Since it's just about "that" time of year again -- time for the next TalkBoard elections -- it seems that questions relating to this topic could be posed to the next crop of candidates for (re-)election. As in, "what the heck have you been and/or will you be doing on TalkBoard?"

I don't see that there's a need to ask TB candidates how they will "reform" TB. After all, that's Randy's bailiwick and his lack of response to this thread is really all the response that is needed.

appreciate you thinking that a lack of response to this answers the question. Actually I've been hustling to try and get the new Ambassador program out the door so it was more of balancing the tasks i have. Sorry that you felt there was a slight because your question wasn't answered yet but i'll try to get to it today before many of us start the Star Mega Do2 which we're pretty excited about.

My first glance at your question left me in a bit of disagreement to your assessment and coming back to it later on leaves me believing the same, though it's likely just point-of-view.

While you suggest that the maturity of FlyerTalk has lead the TB to become ineffective, I actually think that is not the case. I think that the TB is an excellent reason of why FT has matured—that being that much of the heavy-lifting has been accomplished by members of the Board over the years. We see the same thing in the Moderator program.

Not having much to discuss or make decisions for isn't so much a worry for me that the board is ineffective, it's really a sign that again, the heavy-lifting has been done. I don't find it a problem or challenge that we have maintenance going on—often a sign of a well built structure, rather than constant rebuilding which often indicates a faulty foundation.

My personal opinion is that when the Board doesn't have much to discuss then it's a sign that things are going just fine. I'm not much for changing or moving things around just for grins or busy-work. As for changing the rules. I've got to say that Koko did a splendid job a few years back in carefully working within the board and outside the board to formally establish operating rules. This was done with a lot of work and with a tip of the hat to various references such as Robert's Rules of Orders, etc.

Now, as to changing the board membership? What you see as a barrier that supports excessive debate is actually something else for me. I fully understand the complexity of the membership of FlyerTalk, the centrics for our global members and the various points-of-view within this membership. Moving the Board to a fewer number in my mind may make it easier for small groups of members to have a large voice in some topics. By spreading out the number of board members, it serves to dilute small but vocal factions. For instance for some idiotic reason, it becomes fashionable for at least one candidate to run on an anti-Moderator platform. Idiotic? Yep, because they do so well knowing that the Board has no purview of that part of the structure of FlyerTalk. But it "looks good on them" so they think. It is these sort of candidates with an agenda—other than wanting FlyerTalk to be helpful to the travel—that on occasion become the distraction of the Board.

I sincerely don't think that excessive discussion is a problem, because what you view here is just the surface, underneath is the contact that these members of the Board have with our members and i think limiting the amount and range of contact they have with members for feedback would neuter the actual goals of the Board. They represent the members, not themselves.

As for majority, not 2/3, again that might be something you pose to Koko and those who assisted him in putting together the current Rules. I'm not sure how that would alter the Board's decisions that much. It seems those types of changes are just personal preference, nothing that would indicate that one os better than the other.

Bottom line for me: Rarely does the members of the board provide any indication that the current set-up of the Board does not work and I prefer to think that since they were elected by our members and then get some experience there, that they might be the first to indicate in either a majority or 2/3 voice that there needs to be some change done. I don't believe they are the fishbowl that they appear and after all we work on a yearly cycle to refresh the views and operating group.

This is not an item i think that needs change from the outside, i have enough faith in our members that change if needed can come from the inside. This is not real politics, this is about FlyerTalk where the topic is miles, points and travel.

Appreciate your perspective and certainly look forward to some of the Board members themselves to let us both know their own thoughts on your suggested changes.

Thank you.

I'm not in TB so I can't speak on whether TB is fast/hard working or slow/not working, and the fact that there hasn't been any public word in 4 months shouldn't say anything about them. Looking more at posting dates, there was a lot more going on before mid-July. I don't know whether it just slowed down during the summer, they don't want to post, etc. From my perspective as someone who reads the TalkBoard Decision forum, I would like to hear more. I would imagine there has been stuff going on in the past 4 months, it just doesn't get shared. I would just like to hear more from them.

Just a little historical precedent on why I proposed reducing the size of the TB: My home town of Palo Alto, CA, has a 9 member city council and over the years, it has become apparent to many residents that this leads to gridlock -- even though they can pass motions by a simple majority of those voting (NOT counting abstentions). Plus, they have the advantage of meeting in person, not just online.

I raised that very topic with the Talk Board earlier this year. Take some time and read over the responses I got.
Soliciting feedback for upcoming TalkBoard meeting