|
Originally Posted by gleff
My first reaction is, "I wouldn't be surprised if that were true, one of the past criticisms of the TalkBoard was inaction." But then I remembered the vote on bringing back the 'old smilies'. ;)
Originally Posted by gleff
Which category do I fall in? :confused:
Originally Posted by gleff
Fair enough, I suppose we'll just disagree on that, if only because the results of votes are now posted nearly in real-time with full roll call details -- an improvement over past practice -- and because the TalkBoard had once imposed a virtual gag order, a practice that I was critical of and pushed to change from the very beginning of my service.
|
Originally Posted by CameraGuy
I visit this forum frquently and don't honestly remember seeing you post often or solicit feedback.
Admittedly this is a rough proxy, I haven't spent a lot of time on this, but I note that there have been ~ 280 threads in the TalkBoard Issues forum since I was elected in September 2003. A search for my username in the TalkBoard Issues forum shows that I have posted in over 120 threads. (This isn't perfect. I didn't count the individual posts in each thread, or substantively analyze those posts, but these numbers I think support my surprise at your statement.) I think you are one of FT's biggest assets and would vote for you again. |
Originally Posted by CameraGuy
IIRC one of the candidates ran on a smilies platform.
Here....let me try some out: :) :rolleyes: :confused: :mad: ;) Whoops....same ol’, same ol’. :( Nothing new here so far. I think...in fact, I’m certain....that the impetus for this will have to come from the FT membership. I’d personally like to see a few additional options for non-invasive smilies and would like to see some suggestions and examples from the FT members. Or if they’re happy with what is being offered, then fine. I’ll start a thread to this effect and hopefully we’ll get some constructive feedback on the issue. Thanks.... |
Originally Posted by CameraGuy
To my knowledge, this is the first TB to institute a change to the FT features without either Member Demand or Member Feedback. The TalkBoard, in the year before I joined, voted to establish a "Duty Free" forum based completely on the suggestion of one member and without public debate. While I was on TalkBoard, it voted to establish the method of replacing a TB member who left and this, too, was at the suggestion of one member (in this case, me) and without any public debate. Both, IMHO, were more important than adding 3 minutes to editing time. |
Since making the above post this morning, in which I talked about two motions which TB passed without outside input or prior publication, I have thought long and hard about talking about two other motions.
Both of these are motions from the past, both were the ideas of TB members, neither had any input from the FlyerTalk public, and both failed. The reason I was hesitant to mention them is that I thought they did not show TB in a very good light. The reason that I decided, in the end, to discuss them is that I felt that TB's rejection of them does do it credit and -- more importantly -- demonstrates that with the removal of the gag order there have been no repetitions of such actions. Yes, I do credit the lifting of the gag order with that. Today, every TalkBoard member knows that if he makes a motion every other TB member is free to go public with it. Indeed, I believe that if any TalkBoard member had judged the three minute extension of editing time as harshly as I judge the two motions I will mention, they would not have simply voted against them but also have publicized the issue in this forum. The first motion was made shortly after the Nov 2004 TB elections -- but before the newly-elected members had assumed office. The motion was to ask Randy to appoint a particular candidate who had not gotten elected to the TB -- in other words, putting TB's opinion ahead of that of the FlyerTalk membership. Not only was it worded so as to bar the newly-elected members from voting on it but we were not even allowed to have our positions on it placed before TB. (At that time, we were given read-only access to the forum.) The motion failed to get a 2/3rds majority and thus did not pass. Indeed, Randy later ruled it "unconstitutional". It was thus never reported anywhere. A second motion was even more disgusting. It would have abolished one of our long-established forums simply because of the prejudice of one TB member. It would, indeed, never have found anyone to second it except another TB member -- who opposed the motion -- wanted it to be opened to public scrutiny. I am happy to say that in this case, every single member of TB, except the one who made the motion, voted against it. The originator sought to have the motion withdrawn, and when this was not allowed, did not vote. The motion was eventually decided to be faulty on a technicality and it, too, was never reported. No, I am not giving any more details about these motions nor am I going to say who made them. It is not my purpose to embarrass them at this late date. My purpose is simply what I said above -- to show that the removal of the gag order on TB members has accomplished much of what the membership wants as far as transparency is concerned. Yes, minor issues such as a three-minute extension of editing time may well be passed without any TB member mentioning it here, but I very much doubt that either of the motions I discussed would have gone without mention. The TB members who opposed these motions would not have seen them as minor technical changes but as major -- and very harmful -- changes to FlyerTalk. I can not, for the life of me, imagine them remaining quiet about them while they still believed there was even a tiny chance of them passing. |
Originally Posted by Dovster
Since making the above post this morning, in which I talked about two motions which TB passed without outside input or prior publication, I have thought long and hard about talking about two other motions.
Both of these are motions from the past, both were the ideas of TB members, neither had any input from the FlyerTalk public, and both failed. The reason I was hesitant to mention them is that I thought they did not show TB in a very good light. The reason that I decided, in the end, to discuss them is that I felt that TB's rejection of them does do it credit and -- more importantly -- demonstrates that with the removal of the gag order there have been no repetitions of such actions. Yes, I do credit the lifting of the gag order with that. Today, every TalkBoard member knows that if he makes a motion every other TB member is free to go public with it. Indeed, I believe that if any TalkBoard member had judged the three minute extension of editing time as harshly as I judge the two motions I will mention, they would not have simply voted against them but also have publicized the issue in this forum. The first motion was made shortly after the Nov 2004 TB elections -- but before the newly-elected members had assumed office. The motion was to ask Randy to appoint a particular candidate who had not gotten elected to the TB -- in other words, putting TB's opinion ahead of that of the FlyerTalk membership. Not only was it worded so as to bar the newly-elected members from voting on it but we were not even allowed to have our positions on it placed before TB. (At that time, we were given read-only access to the forum.) The motion failed to get a 2/3rds majority and thus did not pass. Indeed, Randy later ruled it "unconstitutional". It was thus never reported anywhere. A second motion was even more disgusting. It would have abolished one of our long-established forums simply because of the prejudice of one TB member. It would, indeed, never have found anyone to second it except another TB member -- who opposed the motion -- wanted it to be opened to public scrutiny. I am happy to say that in this case, every single member of TB, except the one who made the motion, voted against it. The originator sought to have the motion withdrawn, and when this was not allowed, did not vote. The motion was eventually decided to be faulty on a technicality and it, too, was never reported. No, I am not giving any more details about these motions nor am I going to say who made them. It is not my purpose to embarrass them at this late date. My purpose is simply what I said above -- to show that the removal of the gag order on TB members has accomplished much of what the membership wants as far as transparency is concerned. Yes, minor issues such as a three-minute extension of editing time may well be passed without any TB member mentioning it here, but I very much doubt that either of the motions I discussed would have gone without mention. The TB members who opposed these motions would not have seen them as minor technical changes but as major -- and very harmful -- changes to FlyerTalk. I can not, for the life of me, imagine them remaining quiet about them while they still believed there was even a tiny chance of them passing. It is sad and pathetic that the makers of those motions are not publicly known. For all we know they are still TB members. I, for one, would have very much liked to have known who made those motions and been able to read their reasons for making them so I could be sure to not vote for them in the future. We were all disenfranchised in this case. The removal of the gag order may well prevent those types of activities from occuring again...unless, of course, there is unanimous consent to the power-grab or Really Bad Idea in which case it can all be a done deal before anyone other than the TB even knows about it. The TB has taken a step out into the light. Time to come all the way out. |
Originally Posted by Dovster
The reason I was hesitant to mention them is that I thought they did not show TB in a very good light.
:p |
Originally Posted by Cholula
Makes me happy to be serving on the current TB who’s every member could be a candidate for sainthood.
:p |
Originally Posted by wharvey
WOW... the criteria for sainthood must have changed recently.... :)
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:28 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.