goalie

With me, it's not an illusion-I'll give my opinion and answer questions and respond to comments about my opinion

kipper

Yes, but for some, they rarely post.

SkiAdcock

I'm a bit disturbed by what I consider a bit of a witch hunt/outing (my term) by some TB & FT members who are not happy w/ a TB member. A TB member who HAS participated many times on public TB forum in the past it should be noted. Yes, the accusers do the generic thing to cover themselves, but it's not hard to read between the lines.

Please note this is not directed towards the post above mine! I've been thinking it for a while on both private & TB forum.

* Disclosure: This is my take & does not represent any other TB members.

TB members are required to participate in private TB forum. Technically they're not on public, but quite frankly most do & have over the years so for the most part it's not an issue.

But this recent jumping on someone is distasteful (at least to me), and I also have to wonder if the TB member being dissed (who has participated a LOT in the public forum before the last month) is saying I'll wait 'til they get over their jumping on me & then get back to bizness. Note I have no way of knowing if that's their thought nor would I say it's a method I would choose, but I also kind of get it. It could also be they feel the rest of us are covering the issues, so +1 isn't perhaps needed. My point is that if a (any) TB member has been a regular participant in the public TB forum for a long time, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt in the short term.

I would also say to both TB & FT members - if you have a problem w/ a particular TB member, PM them and/or the Community Director.

FWIW - I'd rather see TB subjects actually be on something that serves the better good of FT in terms of forums, wikipedia, etc, vs. individuals, but that's just my 2 cents (which I think in the UK/Europe is minus 2 cents given the exchange rate ).

PS - It goes w/o saying that FT/TB members never have to worry about what I say/think. I've always engaged/responded to everyone.

Cheers.

SkiAdcock

BTW - re: my thoughts on the real-time stuff:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17949203-post31.html

Cheers.

RichMSN

Sharon,

I respect your opinion, but as a wise person once said, "If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck..."

hedur

I realize I'm a total newbie in this section of FT and, therefore, some might discount my opinion. Nevertheless, I've been a member for a while and have recently read a great many threads in this section so I feel I have a somewhat decent handle on the situation here. That said, I'm having a problem with this:

Could it really be considered "crap" by some members (well maybe one member) of the TB to tackle issues that a portion of the contributing membership obviously cares about? And if that member doesn't agree with the issue being addressed is that really an excuse to just ignore the situation until a topic is brought up that they deem worthy to comment on?

That, to me, is a bit 'disturbing'.

I don't see any kind of "witch hunt" happening here at all. More like simply calling a spade a spade.

JMO...

RKG

Quack, Quack!

tom911

What if all Talk Board members felt that way and elected not to post in public? Without them participating in the public forum there wouldn't be much need for a public forum. Last year we had two Talk Board members who went months without posting, yet they met the requirement to remain Talk Board members, and they could not be recalled because there is no requirement to post here. Sort of like a secret society if you're a Talk Board member that only expresses his opinion on the private Talk Board forum and not in public.

SkiAdcock

And I respect yours. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

In fairness I should not have used that word & have edited my response to eliminate it. I can't speak for other TB members & am just guessing. I probably shouldn't post late at night when I'm tired (and cranky because one of the few times I was on for chat it was down - again )

My point was that if a (any) TB member has been a regular contributor on the public TB forum for a long time, but there's a single month where they aren't, it doesn't necessarily constitute a long-term problem but could be due to a variety of things & I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Now if it continued for several months that would be a dif issue. But the jumping on someone when we're not near that stage is, to me, inappropriate.

Re: the need for public TB forum if TB members didn't post on it. First I'd be stunned if 9 TB members decided not to post. But even if they did, the public TB forum would still be needed because we're seeking input on items like forums, wikipedia, etc, from FTers. Even the two who didn't participate publicly last year said they read all the threads in the public forum before voting.

Cheers.

SkiAdcock

I'm still on the fence on this one, and while I was leaning against but then towards yes I'm leaning against again.

I think we're micromanaging something that's worked in the past for several years & probably will continue to work for several years in the future.

TB members have 2 weeks to vote - that encompasses any travel time but also if they want to take in input from FTers, that input as well. Which is a good thing.

I think we do a disservice to BOTH TB members & FT members when we say hey, we're gonna post it's passed/failed, so to FTers it doesn't matter two patooties what you think at this point. But hey for TB members that didn't vote before, no worries, as long as you vote we don't care what you think either at this point but thanks for eventually voting so it looks pretty at the end when we post results.

So if it's announced it's passed on day 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12 or 14 - we're not talking truly, truly changing FTers experiences for the worst by magnitudes if they have to wait a few extra days to find out if something passed/failed. In other words, the FT world will not fall apart if FTers who check TB have to wait the full 14 days on the few occasions that happens.

Note I say that as a regular FTer who actually proposed a forum a few years back that got turned down & then a few years later when it was approved. I was ok with waiting on the process both times & didn't see any need to have it altered.

Cheers.

Dovster

The fact remains, however, that if a motion gets 6 votes in favor, or 4 against, it really does not matter two patooties what that remaining member thinks. You know that, he knows that, and all of the remaining TB members know that.

All you are doing is keeping secret from the membership the results of the vote until that last member decides to cast his ballot. Frankly, I think there is already too much secrecy on FT. Why not get rid of this small bit of it?

hhoope01

Dovster's comment is a bit more succinct and probably easier to understand than mine, but is pretty much the same as my reply in the "Comments Welcome" thread.

RKG

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. ^

kokonutz

I have attempted to address this issue via PM. To absolutely no avail.

That said, this proposal is not about what is going on here right now.

Rather, what is going on right now points out the need for this proposal.

Currently, whatever the TB member's motivation, it is possible for a TB member to drag out debate on an issue that is already secretly settled in the private TB forum. Doesn't matter if they are MIA, really slow to make decisions or having a fit because they are not happy about how votes are going.

But let's forget about the perspective of the TB member dragging it out and/or the TB members who know the outcome but are waiting for the last person to vote so they can announce it.

Look at it from the perspective of a regular poster who is passionate about an issue: you come to this forum and debate your heart out for day after day. Meanwhile, the issue has been settled for a week. How does that make you feel?

We were elected to the TB to act in the best interest of the posters. This proposal does exactly that: takes care of the posters by letting them not waste their time passionately trying to secure an outcome that is already decided.

This proposal is not about TB members. It is about taking care of the posters.

nsx

I see the primary benefit of this proposal as helping with the situation when a TB member drops offline for several weeks for whatever reason. This has happened in past years, and it holds every vote up for 2 weeks until the member returns or is removed from the TalkBoard.

With this proposal, extended absences of a TalkBoard member will have less effect on our ability to release vote results.