Suggestion: Change Talkboard Voting Proccess
 

Might I suggest the following:

Picking up from the point a proposal is formally introduced, with a motiin made and seconded:

1) A five day period for public comment be opened During which members of the community may post their thoughts on the proposal/ask questions on it. TalkBoard members would be permitted to discuss during this period.

2) Following the end of the public comment period, public comment ends, and TalkBoard members have a two-day period to discuss the proposal amogst themselves.

3) After the two-day period, all discussion will end, with the topic put up for a vote. The Voting proccess (number of votes, timeframe, and annoucement of inability for a measure to be passed, etc) would remain as currently written.


Rationale: TalkBoard members should be listening to the community prior to any votes occuring. As things stand now voting occurs simultaneously in that process, which could exclude one's opinion from being heard before a vote is cast. This isn't right.

There's already too much discussion:). As it is, most proposals start out as suggestions and plenty of people comment.

I'd be against dragging this out any longer.

What isn't right is that you don't like how the Spirit vote went. There was plenty of public discussion on Spirit and the vote was carried out properly according to the guidelines of TB. The vote continues - our new guidelines finally allowed us to tell everyone that it's not going to pass.

Truth is, I think there Spirit got quite a listen. I voted for the forum and I know a couple of others (so far) voted yes as well. For some reason, you think the others "didn't listen" and I don't think that's fair. The vote that sealed the fate of this motion didn't get placed until today (that should be obvious considering the time when the result was revealed).

I was willing to give Spirit a try, but quite frankly I was reaching a bit with my yes vote. I was fully expecting that there was a good chance we would be revisiting and closing the forum in less than a year, but I was willing to give it a chance. Others weren't. That's the way it is.

Bolding mine: This is something I firmly believe in ^

I'm a bit perplexed. Often motions are made based on suggestions in the public forum & a lot of discussion goes on (amount based on what the suggestion/motion is). The discussion happens both BEFORE a motion is made & DURING the voting period.

Why are some FTers (and a TB member ;)) assuming that TB members aren't paying attention to those discussions? :confused:

Cheers.

Mary, I honestly do not think this is going to slow anything up. An honestly, if the process takes 12 days, opposed to 7, so what.

Rich, what I don't think is fair, is the fact that you are putting words in my mouth that are untrue. For the record, yes, I supported the Spirit forum, it was in fact the first vote that I had voiced an opinion on publically. As a result, I did follow the process more closely, and as a result concluded that the system needs a bit of a revamp. Am I bummed that Spirit didn't get a forum? Maybe a little, but is it why I made the suggestion, no.

I was simply trying to allign the TalkBoard procedures with our democratic procedures. I also do not appreciate being attacked by you for sharing my opinions of the process. You, and the other TalkBoard members were elected with a purpose: to represent the FlyerTalk community. You may disagree with what I, or others may suggest, and say so publically. However you are not elected to degrade, and make up outright false statements on suggestions made by the public.

One small thing...

FT is not a democracy :)

I also don't think that Rich is attacking you.

goalie and others favoring a quiet period, here's the problem:

Sometimes TB members don't focus on an issue and study it in depth until a vote begins. I've seen this happen time and again. I've done it myself, most recently with the current Spirit vote. It's human nature. We all have busy lives and there's really no need to study an issue for more than 2 weeks.

I oppose stifling discussion during voting, when TB members might have questions to ask the members. I don't see a problem with the current system, but I do see one with the proposed quiet period.

I do represent the community. I was voted in to be a representative and vote my conscience -- not to take an opinion poll for every motion and base my vote accordingly. There's a monumental difference. I do listen and spend a lot of time in TB Topics, but that doesn't mean it will or won't have an effect on my vote.

When I have a firm opinion on a topic, I plan on voting that opinion -- whether it's the first day of the voting period or the tenth is my business alone, and that still remains private. If FTers don't like how I vote or do't feel I represent them well, I'll not be re-elected (who knows if I'll even stand for re-election in November 2013 anyway?).

As far as the Spirit vote -- apologies if you feel I degraded you, but this suggestion came about after it was announced the vote failed and the only contact you've had with the TB was during this particular vote. Seemed pretty obvious to me, anyway.

(BTW, I voted for Spirit and I placed my vote on the second day of the voting period. My vote was, I believe, the first vote cast. Had I waited 14 days, my vote wouldn't have changed.)

My "hang up" (for lack of a better term :)) is related to the recently passed "reporting the TB votes in real time" motion (which I voted against) as imho, that defeats the argument of having discussion after the results have been announced (or in other words, why continue to have a discussion where it doesn't matter)

Speaking for myself, the real time reporting of votes has exposed a conflict - a desire for greater voting transparency against the ability to engender wider consultation. That's not to say the conflict didn't already exist, but it has become more apparent in recent weeks.

As an observation, several TB members confirmed they had reached a solid position on the mileage run log-in motion approx 24 hours after the global announcement about this motion went up.

My preference would be that the global announcements are made earlier in the process. This will allow members to engage for a short period before TB starts voting.

There is currently a minimum of a 48 hour delay between when a topic has been raised by a TalkBoard member until a motion can be made.

While I don't think that posting notification that TalkBoard is considering crafting a motion would work (think of the notifications/announcements that would create), perhaps once TalkBoard is in the process of drafting one that will be voted on, assuming there is a second for it, an announcement could be posted?

Basically, don't do anything if TalkBoard has not considered drafting a motion. However, as soon as someone on TalkBoard begins to draft a motion (which I'm assuming happens in the private forum usually), post notification and a thread in public about it?

I would be willing to consider modifying the current requirement to state that the existing 48-hour waiting period begins after the announcement in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is posted (current verbiage states that the 48-hour waiting period begins when the topic is first introduced in either the public or private TalkBoard forums). This would encourage (actually, require) TalkBoard members to post ideas in the public forum for review and comment rather than completing all of the business behind closed doors, which is a good thing, IMHO.

I don't think requiring a global announcement for every missive or idea that a TalkBoard member has is necessary and will result in announcement overkill.

I absolutely, positively, 100% oppose any motion that would impose a quiet period where members are restricted from commenting on a proposal after a certain date. It's a horrible idea for this type of non-real-time environment (where some people may not even be able to reach a computer to read and comment within whatever timeframe is allotted), and it's completely unenforceable (what's to stop someone from simply starting a new thread in TalkBoard Topics or even elsewhere on FT?). Why anyone would consider silencing the voices of the membership is completely beyond me.