I'm so sad that ScottC has withdrawn from the election. As I saw it from what I had read so far, Scott was the ONLY candidate who was campaigning on a platform of openness and transparency for the TalkBoard process.

I have been vocal about the frustration about the closed door nature of the TalkBoard (I mean, why do we ELECT folks if they aren't here to represent the community?!) and so I'm looking for candidates who also embrace this philosophy.

Apologies in advance for hijacking Scott's thread, but since there has been some speculation, I just wanted to announce that I, too, am dropping off the ballot due to personal reasons. I don't feel that I will be able to devote the time and energy that the position requires anymore, so rather than let everyone down, I'm stepping down.

Thank you to everyone who voted for me. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by markbach (edited 08-19-2003).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by techgirl:
I'm so sad that ScottC has withdrawn from the election. As I saw it from what I had read so far, Scott was the ONLY candidate who was campaigning on a platform of openness and transparency for the TalkBoard process.

I have been vocal about the frustration about the closed door nature of the TalkBoard (I mean, why do we ELECT folks if they aren't here to represent the community?!) and so I'm looking for candidates who also embrace this philosophy.[/QUOTE
Techgirl, I think you are mistaken in your criticism. There is no "openess" problem. We are an advisory board. The President of the USA does not publish what his advisors tell him. Randy actually does, in the archives. And we have not had an active thread in the forum in about 2 months. Just because it is quiet, doesn't mean that we are up to something. There are no black helicopters.

I was going to say that if elected to the TalkBoard I would discuss anything that Randy hadn't asked me not to.

Then I recalled that the TalkBoard had previously voted not to discuss pending items. I don't imagine that's binding on a new TalkBoard, but would be subject to a new vote. And I would vote to keep things as open as possible, and I would encourage other members of the TalkBoard to do so as well.

Basically, I will share what I can of what's going on in the TalkBoard, and I will solicit as much input as possible as to what should be going on in the TalkBoard.

I won't violate Randy's wishes in that regard, and his wishes may include following the vote of a TalkBoard not to discuss certain things -- although I certainly hope that it will not, and I will actively discourage closed discussions to the greatest extent possible.

Okay, so those are general beliefs and procedures, and that's how I feel.

However, I don't want to be someone who breaks promises so I'll also disclose that I could imagine certain things that would need to be discussed quietly --

First, if Randy asked for advice on how to deal with a member, I'd like things to be 100% open for that member, but I would also want to respect the member enough to value their privacy and dignity and not go around airing anyone's dirty laundry.

Second, if Randy asked for input on an item about a frequent flyer program, and wanted that input confidentially, I would absolutely hold it in confidence. I trust Randy's judgment in that regard.

Apologies if I've taken this topic too far afield.

Best,
Gary

The reason TB didn't discuss pending votes was because...well, they were pending votes.

Had nothing to do with secrecy, so please don't believe they 'few' naysavers.

Problem was that TB was smart enough not to respond to all the negative (I think we call it taking the high road); when in fact maybe we should have responded. But that would have been coming down to the level of the naysayers.

Personally it was hard NOT responding; but all of us managed for the ...

...Betterment of Flyertalk.

Dan Hammer
Former member of TB

cigarman... I swear I only hear the black helicopters a couple of times a month. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I have NO problem with Randy having an advisory board. And I have no problem with an advisory board operating in secrecy.

What I have a problem is that the advisory board (which I think Randy should just appoint on his own) is being elected by the general FT public in this big election hoopla... and that it is somehow masquerading as a democracy with platforms, campaigning, and the like.

What I also have a problem with is that the TalkBoard was a GRAND concept... and yet something happened to the orignial concept and no one told us. We were originally electing six of the ten members to ONE YEAR terms. Yet two years passed between elections and we now have several members staying on.

Now my *assumption* is that at least four of you are Randy's appointees... but then why are we only electing four people? Why not six? And are they being elected to a one year term? Or a two year term? Or a lifetime term?

Why did a Town Hall forum get much hype and then fail to tell us much of anything beyond that it took several votes to elect a president and that all of Randy's appointees resigned from the TalkBoard?

I will state my position... I think that if Randy wants or needs a board of advisors, he should get said board. He can even take applications. But don't put the responsibilty on the FT Community to elect those advisors and then not give us some type of democratic representation in return.

Sorry to sound cynical... but I dont buy all this "personal reasons" baloney. Who do you expect to believe that...??? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif What is the REAL reason...?

Common Folks, am I the only one that doesnt buy this story...?

------------------
Gaucho100K

[This message has been edited by Gaucho100K (edited 08-20-2003).]

Are you calling them liars?

Or do you know something that the rest of us do not?

Did the Black Helicopters swing by on their way to techgirl's? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I heard his real name was Lee Harvey Scottwald. You know the 'C' in ScottC? That's the letter right before 'D', as in "Big D!" Coincidence, sadly, no!

No.

Are you...? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

If this is not calling them liars, what is?

This Black Helicopter thing is also getting old very quickly.

All this hush-hush, rumours behind the curtains only, emailing versions back & forth with 'real reasons', etc. etc. does nothing good for FlyerTalk. After all, the truth always comes out... its just buried deep between all the rumours and fabrications... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Gaucho100K (edited 08-20-2003).]

Nice try.. but I will not bite... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

From: "Gaucho @Flyertalk"
To: ScottC
Cc: markbach
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:03:34 +0000

Is that why you emailed Scott and I to try and fish the "real story" out of us? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Nope... Im not fishing. Im asking it here and Ive also contacted you about it directly, cause until now all Ive received are the "B" versions from third parties.

So... where is there room for http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif ...?