How to de-marginalize the TB and create more opportunities for collaboration
 

The TB's structure is set up to make it very difficult to do even simple things. I know, because a few years ago I took the lead in writing down the TB guidelines out of the various precedents and traditions that the TalkBoard used to operate under.

Given that other power structures in FT (ie, the moderator corps and/or ad-hoc committees convened to address FT issue) do not suffer from this inherent inefficiency it only makes sense that management would prefer to defer to those power structures in examining and working on 'problems.' This has led to some decisions being taken on what appears to be an ad hoc basis.

IMHO, the TalkBoard is being marginalized into irrelevancy by it's inefficiency. Since the TB is meant to the the voice of the posters and vox populi vox Dei, I think we need to re-evaluate how to make the TB both a more efficient voice and also expand participation in the Board.

In order to achieve efficiency, the first step might be to reduce the requirements for the TB to make a recommendation from 2/3 vote to simple majority vote. Requiring a 2/3 majority to make a recommendation places an incredibly high barrier to decision-making. Frankly If I were the Community Director I would not want to work with a body that requires near-consensus to fix problems because it's just not efficient. Would you? Simply majority vote requirements will immediately make the TB more efficient and a better resource for the CD to address problems as they arise and improve FlyerTalk.

Another step might be to create a TB committee process, such that committees could be set up and charged with examining some of the systemic issues that FT faces. By dividing the work perhaps we can work more deeply and efficiently.

I believe that these committees would work best if they were led by TB members as Chairmen, but populated by any and all FT members who cared to volunteer for that committee. These would not be standing committees, but committees created to address issues that require long-term, sustained examination and discussion. This would vastly expand the number of volunteers who get to have a more formal collaborative input into both the day-to-day as well as the strategic direction of FlyerTalk.

The TB and/or CD could come up with specific committees, but I would think they might over time address issues such as:
technology
moderator best practices
TOS review and revision
forum opening/closing standards
forum 'crisis' management

The Committees could constructively explore issues in greater depth than 9 TB members with limited time can, and could make recommendations to the TB who would then decide whether make those recommendations to the CD.

This may sound like a lot of bureaucracy, but I think in practice it's just going to mean having more people have a more formal opportunity for input. Apparently something similar took place regarding the decision to split the Travel Safety and Security forum and that process worked well enough on an ad hoc basis....but it could have worked just as well within the structure of a more efficient TalkBoard instead of being done on an ad hoc basis.

Anyway, those are a couple of my suggestions for de-marginalizing the TB, for going after the big-picture issues facing FlyerTalk and making the TalkBoard process a better voice for the posters by creating more opportunities for collaborative input into the management of FlyerTalk.

Hopefully other posters have other ideas that we can talk about too.

Because frankly the other options of continuing to limp along like a neutered puppy, or shutting the TB down and ceding what little input the TB has left to those who are assuming more and more of that authority in the absence of TB's ability to wield that authority efficiently. Neither of those options is particularly appealing to me and imho are not in the best interests of FlyerTalk.

Give the TB some real power. I've used this as an example before, but it takes an act of TB to get a new forum going - and evidence of need must be provided, yet after it's set up, it's now the "purview" of the moderators.

So, they set them up but don't get a say what goes in them :confused:

If they're just an advisory committee, essentially just to set up or remove forums, quite honestly, why bother? The CD could probably handle the request and evidence herself - there aren't that many each year.

Let's get this thread back on track.

Yes, yes it does and IMHO no good can come from a plethora of committees making equally as non-binding recommendations to the CD as TB already does now. Sorry but I'm of the opinion that the answer to anything isn't more bureaucracy.

If we truly want the voice of the people to be heard in a more effective and direct fashion I'd favor more of a proposition type of voting being held every TB election. Should enough members speak their minds about something TB can't or won't address then set a process to bring these matters to the members annually and let their results be forwarded on to the CD if the voters approve. Surely the technology could handle one or two questions beyond the simple ballot we use in TB election at present.

While far from a perfect system IMHO it empowers members more than filtering their input through a series of committees that could dilute the message. That is, of course, only MHO.

I think the best way to de-marginalise TB is not to have it become a plethora of committees (which can be good, but also can be very long winded and slow - particularly in an IBB setting such as this, where conversations take days to be held) but instead for TB to stop trying to power grab, demonise others it feels threatened by, but start working productively, preferably in co-operation rather than in adversarial battle with those it would seek to demonise and control and not be riven by internal politics.

It would also be good if TB could be a bit more proactive again - which I admit, kokonutz and some others are trying to be, but also not brush off genuine concerns where mods/members have sought assistance, and where TB has refused to help.

I know, I'm off to write my letter to Santa Claus now as well! ;)

I agree with your underlying sentiment. Realize, however, that the idea that 'power grabs' are taking place work in both directions. Examples abound of demonization from mods directed towards any efforts to improve FlyerTalk that does not fit in the neat little box that some mods would like to keep the TB in.

So yes, the 'us-vs.-them' view that many moderators and posters seem to hold is unhelpful. We are all ON THE SAME TEAM. Team FlyerTalk.

I believe that everyone wants FT to be the best place it can be, even if we sometimes have different ideas of what that might be and how to get there.

I think that there is a hell of a lot of room for better collaboration between the TB and the mod corps. It seems really stupid and inefficient to me that this iron curtain hangs between them. I think Randy created a system of governance that is set up to fail in the long run, with collaborative input allowed on the cosmetics but not on the meat. Can you be more specific as to the areas where mods have sought assistance where TB refused to help?

Here are some ideas that I have suggested to improve TB/mod corps collaboration:

- Joint projects between the TB and Mod corps in dealing with 'problem' forums. Not sure why TS/S was not handled this way, but that's water under the bridge now. As I say above, I believe one reason NOT to work with the TB is the ridiculously high bar required to get anything recommended. We ought to fix that and make a simple majority recommend rather than 2/3.

- Make the private forums of the TB and Mod corps read-only available to the other group so each group can know what the other is dealing with/working on.

Unfortunately, there is so much distrust. It's a real black helicopter war out there sometimes.


I also still think there ought to be more opportunities for more formal input by posters.

And here's another area for deep and long consideration:

- What does 'commercial' mean?

There's not much I can disagree with in there. I've actually suggested previously a shared private forum between mods and TB members (I don't see TB/mods giving up the ability to get on with their jobs without 'outsiders' looking in) so we actually have an opportunity to discuss in private. That would also give more of an opportunity to have a space to discuss forum management issues (I believe AF/KLM has previously asked to have a catchall third subforum for airlines like KQ, who use the same mileage programme, but are discussed in a disassociated forum elsewhere, but has been refused).

I would agree that mods have taken on more of TB's role... but I also think it's fair to say most of us have not rushed to do it either, and have tended to do so out of frustration over the inaction at times. Should I come to TB to ask for a name change for the VS forum, and risk several weeks of wrangling over the meaning of the word's 'Virgin' and 'Atlantic' only for it to be decided it isn't important enough to vote on, or should I ask just ask Carol for a forum name change.....

I like the way you think, lady. Hey, how about BOTH: read-only each other's private forums and have a third for collaboration?

We could see where the other is coming from and collaborate on solutions that take into account each group's unique perspectives and priorities.

I understand your frustration. I can see your desire to balance input vs. decisive action, and clearly the TB process is broken when the barriers to making even the simplest changes seem insurmountable.

Hopefully going from 2/3 to simple majority to move decisions would help alleviate some of that frustration. Can you (or anyone else!?) think of any other ways to make the TB a more efficient decision-taking body?

Personally, I feel that the two week voting period for some topics is way too long and during that period topics get beaten to death. I travel, everyone travels. Even when I travel, I'm connected to the Internet. I would be pretty confident that even at my busiest I could vote on just about everything in less than 5 days.

Having read some of the gossip and personal attacks in the private Mod Forum I can certainly understand why the Mods would not like to have others see what they are saying.

(Just for kicks, take a look at the thread about the first(?) Mod Do and see how many Mods were complaining that a specific member of TalkBoard had been included in Randy's invitation -- and how they would never have spent their own money to go there if they knew they might meet him.)

I can't speak to what the forum was 8 or 9 years ago. I can say this is an inaccurate and unfair representation of what it has been for several years, both under Randy's leadership and now under mine.

The TB Guidelines allow for a shorter period provided all TB members have cast their ballots.

Yes, but the problem is that all it takes is one TB member to slow things down for up to 2 weeks. I'd be in favor of reducing the voting period from 2 weeks to a week or 5 days in the name of efficiency.

Exactly.

koko, I was barely able to gain approval for eliminating the practice of counting Abstain the same as No. That was a minuscule relaxation of the supermajority requirement. I'm sure no TalkBoard will approve a change to a simple majority threshold.

As to standing committees, that's not my idea of how to accomplish anything.

Here's my suggestion: Nothing is impossible for the person who doesn't care who gets the credit. Every idea that surfaces here is seen by the TalkBoard, many moderators, and the Community Director. The best ideas will be implemented in some fashion by one or more of these groups.

As long as it improves FT, does an idea really need to pass through the TalkBoard? Apparently for some people (no you, koko!) the answer is Yes.

Edited to add: koko, you can read the history of the Abstain proposal in the private TB forum to see how challenging that was.