Thanks for taking the time to think about and respond to my suggestion.

From my perspective I think it makes sense to set expectations up front rather than respond to them as they come up. For example you could right now be working on and plotting the implementation of a direct competitor to FT. No one might know that but you. And you may not believe that there is anything wrong with your sitting on the TB while you undertake that effort because you plan to resign from the TB as soon as your product is ready. It's not that you are doing anything wrong, necessarily, it's just that you don't even realize that others might perceive you as conflicted.

So it's not so much about enforcement, it's more about setting expectations and making them clear.

Like bhatnasx I am. Too many rules to try and legislate morality IMHO but YYMV.

Because we can't reasonably anticipate all the forms a conflict might take, this will be a judgment call by the CD in any case. No rule can change that, so I don't see a pressing need for a rule.

However if we have a few instances of this needing to be addressed by the CD, I would support a rule making explicit the prohibition for similar cases but not limited to those cases.

FWIW, I would see a conflict if someone has access to policy-making private forums on two competing sites.

IMHO, people who run for office & want to be elected to serve the community are generally too involved & care too much to allow immoral activity stain their name & reputation.

gleff wasn't the only TB member who has resigned when either a conflict came up or his/her personal life balance was being impacted - others have too. The only one who didn't was Radioman - and he was voted off the island & hasn't posted since July 2010...

So, basically, I'm not too worried (at this point) about a member not coming forward when it's time for them to do so - there's no real record of conflict in the past. And, I know, in a previous thread, it may have been perceived that gleff was working both sites - but I believe that as soon as he was fully immersed & confident he'd be working with that other site, he pulled out of FT leadership roles.

I see a conflict if my elected representative, who is responsible for making FT a better place, is working - even in a volunteer capacity - for another site which has a similar aim and target market to FT. How is that working to improve FT?

It's not necessarily about immoral activity. It's about ensuring that the nine of you - who represent us - have the best interests of FT at heart. If someone is deeply involved in another site - which competes with FT - how can I be sure that they will put their position as our elected representative of FT above what is asked of them on any other site?

If they cannot do that, then I don't want them representing me - and if they take up such a competing position after they have been elected to TB, then they've misled the people who voted for them about their commitment to FT.

We didn't do a recall mechanism when we reviewed the TB guidelines, arguing that it was unnecessary and difficult. This is the first time I've actually wished for a recall, as I do believe that to continue on as an elected representative of the FT community, while accepting positions of responsibility on a board which potentially competes with FT, shows that you do not have the best interests of FT at heart.

It's ironic...usually I am all for discussing moderation and the conflicts created by it...BUT THERE IS ANOTHER THREAD IN THE TB FORUMS ON THAT TOPIC!!!! @:-) @:-) @:-)

This one is about other types of conflicts of interest TB members may face.

Another rare instance where you and I agree completely.

And I don't think the TB can regulate morality or account for every potential conflicted situation. But most conflict of interest policies are broad outlines of 'what to avoid,' not specific prohibitions against specific activities anyway. And, to me at least, taking a position of leadership in the org chart of a competing organization is pretty much the very definition of creating a conflict of interest when one already has a position of leadership in this place's org chart.

Yeah, those are all really good ideas. ^

Lol, yep. See below.

As you predicted, as a direct result of this thread it has been pointed out to me in PM that there is currently at least one TB member serving in a leadership role on a competing site as well as a few FT moderators serving in volunteer and/or administrative roles on a competing site.

So while there may be no record of conflicts or perceived conflicts in the past...

As an unpaid volunteer, I don't believe that helping another site (and BTW merely posting there helps the other site) takes anything away from FT. For me the line is clear: if you are an insider helping to direct the operation of the site, you need to choose one site or the other. If you have no inside information or influence, you have no conflict.

For paid staff, the line would be set by the employer and might be a little different.

So to you does that include being an appointed 'Guide' on MP with the power to create stickies, edit other posters' posts and act as an 'Greeter/Ambassador' for MP?

In my opinion, that's not a conflict for an unpaid volunteer. There is no policy role or influence for the jobs you mentioned. Provided that the member has time to do both jobs well, I see no problem. Others disagree, but you asked for my opinion.

All the Talkboard members and moderators know that I have taken the position that you cannot hold a leadership role on both boards simultaneously. I think that both boards will benefit from separate leadership who seek to implement a vision for the respective board to make it the best that it can be. I have no problem with those who post on both boards, irrespective of what title they might hold. And I have no problem with members who graciously serve as Ambassadors on FT having a defined leadership role on another board. The title "guide" appears to be equivalent (with a few tools) to our Ambassador role. I was asked for a decision on this before guides were announced. I took the time to read thru the duties and to think about it. That's where I came down.

Now, it's possible that it will evolve to a genuine leadership role. That decision will be revisited if that is the case. But today, it simply seems to be a helpful role to help folks learn the intricacies of the new board, not a policy and decision making role.

I did and thank you for sharing it.

I wish all TB members were as responsive as you are (some are, eg. SkiAdcock, bhatnasx, Markie, others imho not so much). ^

I do disagree that there is no influence for the job you mention. And in any case, there are PLENTY of new members to be welcomed here on FT, and to be guided around, and SPAM to be caught. If a FTer wants to focus on doing that elsewhere there are plenty of volunteers waiting in line step up to leadership positions in FT.

But that's an 'in-the-weeds' issue.

From a 30,000 foot perspective, I'd rather not see our elected representatives taking on a position of authority on websites that are basically clones of FT. One day maybe MP will not be just a clone of FT. But that's what it is today: FT 2.0.

I'd rather see our elected representatives keep their focus on improving FT 1.X, and taking it to FT 1.(X+1). We elected you to represent us, the posters to FT. To focus on and improve our user experience.

So while I hope that TB members do check out MP and kick the tires and try to learn from it, it feels wrong for you guys to start taking leadership roles over there...not immoral or evil...just...wrong. JMHO and YMMV.


ETA, since we were apparently posting simultaneously, Madame Community Director: thank you for sharing your reasoning.

I would hope, however, that TB members would hold themselves to a higher standard than that minimum you have set for them. I would hope they would focus all their FF IBB energies on making FT the best place it can be. And that they require the same from their colleagues in the form of a recommendation to you. Dum spiro, spero.

Curious I asked what constituted "postitions of authority" in post #3 of this thread, specifically mentioning the MP Guide role, but it got no response.

Is this something the TB could or would put to a vote? I see OP's POV but don't think it necessary to try and enforce IBB fidelity to the degree suggested.

I'm not paying a lot of attention to the other sites out there (at least not as much attention as I'm paying to FT).

Who is the TB representative you wish to recall? (PM me if you'd prefer to do so) and what is their position on another site (and which site are you referring to?).

I agree with your sentiment & if I, as a TB member (and a FTer), agree with your perception of the TB member in question, I'll be happy to ask them to reconsider their position.