wharvey

If the Talkboard does not know the answer to that question, why are you continuing to approve charities to be part of FlyertalkCares?

tazi

Perhaps requests like these should be classified differently and not included as part of FTC (which may or may not still exist ).

tazi

For what it's worth, I agree

Jenbel

Because when we approve a member's solicitation, they are, according to the motion passed, a part of the FTC set up. Unless we re-motion, that's the situation. Given the problems getting enough interest to get what we have currently set up in the first place I don't believe revisiting it is likely to be possible - but you never know, miracles happen. Dovster, Cluebyfour and ozstamps agreed on the other active thread

Randy Petersen

This is an unfair treatment of this TalkBoard member.

You have taken a snippet of a board-based post and made it personal. This is not the intended manner for members to provide input for and if this is the case for yourself in the future, then your privileges to post within this forum can be withheld - not because we don't all wish that members can contribute when asked for input, but when they take advantage of that intent.

I think you owe the lady an apology as well as re-thinking where on FlyerTalk you intend to get the most from your time online.

As for "representing the members." If this were entirely true, would you not find that each and every vote on any manner would be 100% one way or the other. As it is, it is rarely the case which means that different TalkBoard members can represent what they think members are saying or from time-to-time, what they feel is best for FlyerTalk which may in certain situations, not be entirely best for some groups of members. As well, just like members, our TalkBoard members hear things differently though we are all seeing the same. Want to test the theory? See the new movie Vantage Point.

Now, where were we?

J-M

There's a difference between interpreting member's viewpoints differently (leading to split votes) and flat out saying you have no interest in member opinion. That's what she said and that's what I replied to.

It makes no sense to title a post "Comments Welcome, Voting Underway" and then have a TB member say in that post that they are unlikely to listen to member comments.

Punki

I not even really sure why the person and/or persons who want upgrades can't just go into Coupon Connection and say, "I work for a non-profit corporation that creates highly sustainable and affordable ultra low-power ICT infrastructure technologies designed specifically for organizations that provide vital services -- education, healthcare, economic development -- in remote and rural areas in the developing world. In this capacity I am flying to Africa in June and would really appreciate any unused eVIPs that anyone might have."

Then, the people who feel it is a worth cause could donate the eVIPs should be be so inclined.

ElmhurstNick

I am concerned about this entire process, and the points that Gary makes about the charity in question are a good example. Now that Internet Brands owns FT, I believe that y'all are opening up a can of worms for yourselves by doing any kind of clearance, endorsement, due dilligence (that phrase really ver.concerns me), whatever.

I understand the desire to help - for example missydarlin has been an honorable member of the community and her request for the Komen Foundation is completely reasonable. But the TB is taking on a burden greater than their level of fiduciary responsibility.

I'm not going to say to vote no. But I will say that you should be extremely conservative in general in this topic, for your own good.

bhatnasx

I seconded the motion & voted yes. Gleff did bring up some valid points - but those points were presented back to the member & answers were provided to some questions by the member. Whether or not some TB members felt they were the right answers or not is another story. My feelings on this (and I did conduct my own research) was that as the member wanted to solicit upgrade instruments (and when they came to us, they were looking for soon-to-be-expiring leftovers, and they did not mention they were looking for cash or miles or any financial considerations), and the fact that Inveneo checked out (IMHO - from my own personal research) as a legitmate charitable organization, I see no issue with allowing this member to solicit from FlyerTalkers. As for "due diligence" - it's not a term that I would use. Gleff dug deeper into the financials of the charity & I admittedly did not - but, I did check out other references of this organization & they seemed legit to me. That said, every FT'er has to make a decision whether or not they want to support an individual charity. This charity brings computing & networking & the internet to places that can't afford it - As we're an international web-based traveling community, I saw it as a potential fit.

wharvey

Not allowed per the Coupon Connection TOS.

In addition, there is a process that is in place for charities that wish to "solicit" on Flyertalk.

magiciansampras

I'm not sure why we even go through this process with TB, then. What do you think this thread is about, Jenbel?

Cholula

My take is that this charity as well as Missy's 3-day walk and a few others is just as you stated. The member is asking permission to solicit donations but the charity is not part of FT Cares.

FT Cares is the charitable arm of FT which donates to a variety of charities and picks up new ones as the situation demands, i.e., the SE Asia Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, etc.. This charity,Inveneo, IMO, does not fall under FT Cares. It's simply a charity that wants to solicit individual FT'ers for, in this case, upgrade instruments.

We're dealing with two separate charitable issues here:

1. Charities that approach FT for permission to solicit donations from it's members. These charities generally are not funded by FT cares. TB simply votes to allow/not allow the charity to solicit funds from members.

2. Charities that either apply for funds from FT Cares or that the TB/Randy nominates for donations from FT Cares. TB then votes to recommend (or not) a donation by FT Cares.

If I've got this wrong in some manner, I encourage a correction.

I'd like to hear from members as to their opinions, pro or con, on these individual charities. Not so much a vague "I don't think this charity sounds very worthy" as much as a more helpful "I've had experience with this charity and here's what I learned" kind of thing.

wharvey

Cholula,

This is part of the confusion.... the motions as posted.... say "FlyerTalk Cares".... so I had assumed that meant they were part of the FlyerTalk Cares program. Are you saying none of the charities that have been approved by the Talkboard are part of the Flyertalk Cares program?

Last Post Replies Views
Motion Passed: FlyerTalk Cares, Susan G Komen

Motion Passed: FlyertalkCares - American Cancer Society

kokonutz

Dub: this is a point of some confusion as there are some subtleties at work here (eg, FT Cares the fund vs. FT Cares the process) and some of the TB members are working on clarifying and improving the entire nexus between Flyertalk and charitable giving so that there is a logical and well-publicized application and approval process as well as posting guidelines.

Stay tuned!

Cholula

Concur on both. We need to agree on both lingo and process so we're all on the same page here.