More food for thought. This is great!

You are correct about this, and it's a disadvantage I had not considered, perhaps because I never thought we would want to shield our actions or inaction from the voters. But the effect is to shield, as you say.

I was hoping that consensus could become the norm of operation, based on the reasonable premise that all TalkBoard members want what's best for FT. Yet If one faction of voters firmly believes that policy A will add value to FT and the other faction firmly believes that policy A will subtract value, the debate can only be settled politically.

That's exactly when Randy will probably step in and decide the issue. Because as I see it, the TalkBoard is a tool for Randy to gather information on what the members want, and especially to raise issues that Randy may have overlooked. If the TalkBoard reaches a consensus, Randy can be pretty sure that the consensus is a reasonable approximation of what the members want. If the TalkBoard is split, e.g. if a question becomes a campaign issue, the non-consensus result proves virtually nothing about what the membership at large feels.

In order to survive in the long run, the TalkBoard needs to provide value to Randy. To the extent the TalkBoard acts politically, it reduces its value as an advisory panel and makes itself irrelevant.

So how _do_ we avoid a slide into full-blown politics on the TalkBoard? Is such a slide inevitable for any elected body?

To answer your first question - this happens quite regularly. Usually though, its the members that bring up the proposal for discussion, the TB discusses it in private while the public debate is going on, and then, if enough (2) TB members feel like they put a motion together & second it, then it goes to vote. If not, then it fades away. I think it'd probably be better for the membership if it doesn't fade away, but that seems to be how things go.

To answer your second question, any TB member can quote themselves or say anything they want to about any subject (as long as it doesn't break the privacy policy of the TB). So, for sake of argument, if I was bringing up the idea of a Men's Travel Forum in the private forum and wanted to gather member feedback, I could start a thread that states that I have an idea that I've brought to the TB's attention & am looking for member feedback on that idea.

depends

If a non-TB member proposes something in TB that needs a 'sponsor' to get an airing then I would be happy to propose/second that. After all the issue is important enough to the OP for them to find a way to air it.

There are always ways of "compliment things out of the door" so to say.

I personally do not believe in it because the members deserve honesty.

I would ask myself: Will the average FT member participate ? If I cant convince myself because the concept simply doesnt fit, I can certainly not convince others and the motion has a NO vote from my side.

A tough question, a good one, but a tough one. Certainly one that I would like to consider further.

To make a motion or to second a motion means I believe it should go for a vote. If I believe it should go for a vote, I cannot imagine ever wanting to use a vote as a way to prove to somebody that it was not a motion which the TB as a whole felt was worthy of referring to Randy for action. I would endeavor to only use the voting system for those issues I feel should pass or which I am representing a group on FT in their hope of getting it to pass. I believe that the role of the TB member is in part to act autonomously for the good of FT, but it is also to act on behalf of the members of FT who may wish to raise issues specific to them that I would not otherwise have considered.

It is in this case, i.e. recommending for a vote an issue that I had not personally initiated but was instead representing to the TB as both a TB member and as a FT membership representative, that I think the biggest challenge as a TB member comes into being.

When and how do we decide that somebody else’s idea is not good enough?

Outside of being asked to raise an issue that goes against the clear and previously discussed decisions of either Randy (or as IB if that were the case), that is hard. I can foresee some issues that would be brought to light during any open forum discussion as being not good for a vote yet or as proposed. I can however also imagine some ideas that although perhaps unpopular with some of the membership, would be best voted on to give credibility to the idea that we as TB members are there for both Randy and the FT membership.

I wouldn't personally move or second a motion I didn't support. I've seen it done in other board setting to allow discussion just amongst board members on an issue.

The other tough question!

The simple answer is that if all TB members have clearly and publically stated their position on a topic then going through the process of making a motion, getting it seconded and voting on it is pointless unless it's clearly going to pass. TalkBoard is about proving answers to the general membership and in the scenario stated the answer is there.

Things get a bit more complicated when TalkBoard simply doesn't answer the question:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=864393

OldRoyal suggested creating an Airports forum and various general members chimed in with various thoughts.... but not a public word from a TB member. The question was not answered, and I just don't see that acceptable.

I firmly pledge that I'll always be happy to give my own views on a topic including a clear answer.

Generally I'd like to see TalkBoard being more willing to vote on a motion and unless it's clearly a no-hoper I'll be happy to make an early motion for anything that I support, likewise seconding a motion. In terms of whether any motion suspequently passes then I just don't see it as important beyond that the decision is the 'right' one.

Sunshine disinfects.
 

The votes taken by TB over the past few years make it quite evident that consensus is a big part of the TalkBoard culture. While this is for the most part a very good thing, it can lead to the burying of issues and secrecy in the decision-making process.

As a TalkBoard member, I'll work to strike a balance between the two.

I think the right thing to do is to vote the way you thing - regarding the actual motion at issue - and not by trying to calculate "would it pass or not".

Such a way of voting - according do your thoughts of what the consensus is has a tendency to prevent changes - many times for the good.

A motion should be voted based on it's merits and how it can contribute to the FT community. not politics.

d.