Some things that I think would make great agenda topics:

1) How to make TB more transparent. There's always the big "ha ha" about black helicopters and such. One way to stop the black helicopter talk is to turn the lights on so we can make sure the helicopters aren't there.

2) Define what TB is really here for. Maybe clarify why TB exists, what is oversees, where and how it is different from Randy, etc.

3) Institute all of the "rules" and "precedent" into something concrete. It seems a lot of the time TB makes up the rules about voting times and such as it goes along. It would be nice to have these written down somewhere and updated appropriately.

Thanks.

Thank you Clue and Spiff for so quickly substantiating my points. ;)

History is full of examples of fledgling governing bodies where initially all power rested in a single source. When it became apparent that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" those bodies created systems of checks and balances. It is inevitable.

Of course, in our situation, the problem could be (and maybe is being) resolved easily and quickly by the voters. Despite the fact that moderators have an advantage in an open election because of their authority and visibility, we now have more non-moderators than moderators on TalkBoard. Hopefully the very smart FlyerTalk voters will continue this trend.

Thank you, magiciansampras for your most excellent suggestioins. While I personally would very much like to address the issues that Randy recommended, I don't think TalkBoard is there yet. You are right that we first need to address the issues you raise.

I honestly think we are doing a pretty good job with communication. Personally, I would like to see the TalkBoad forum "read only" but in the meantime I know that I and kokonutz do our level best to share everything we possibly can without violaitng the current rules of secrecy. There is actually very little that happens on TalkBoard that isn't made public.

AMEN to that! I actually interpreted Randy's instructions as an attempt to give us direction, but to date, my efforts to bring them to fruition have not produced results.

This is an absolute necessity. The funny thing is that the last time I was on TalkBoard (back in 2001) we had an excellent set of guidelines. It seems that they were discarded somewhere along the way. Too bad. Maybe we can find them somewhere and use them as a base to begin again.

Your "points" are not at all sustained. FT is not a democracy.

You have no evidence (zero) that "Despite the fact that moderators have an advantage in an open election because of their authority and visibility", so please do not confuse this extremely biased opinion with "fact".

And I think we can both agree that your opinion here is neither "official" nor "fact," yes?

Well if members don't want a moderator to also be on TalkBoard, they usually have enough of a choice of other members to vote for.

Anyways, this is an internet bulletin board - not "real world" where someone being police, judge, and legislator can really impact someone's life.

Not so, if the TB can take over the TOS then they certainly can alter the rules on this issue as well.

I actually don't have a personal stand on this issue, but it is interesting to see how strongly opposed some mods are! Kinda makes me wonder if there is more there than I realize.

"Fortunately, it does not matter what the Talkboard thinks about moderators running--that's Randy's call. That should not be a point of discussion at the meeting, because it's not something the Talkboard holds sway over."
__________________

Thanks ClueByFour et al. I might suggest proposed posters revisit what the goal of the thread is (please see Punki's original post). Let's leave the political rhetoric for the election in the Fall, and focus on how the Board can improve FT using the authority available to it by fiat from the HOM.

Hi Punki,
As 2008 is the tenth anniversary of FlyerTalk I'd appreciate your tabling something along the lines of
FlyerTalk 2010: addressing a changing industry.

In line with the suggestions made by Randy, which you noted above:
- There could be a reiteration of the principles and direction of FlyerTalk;
- Recognition of the increase in member airlines in the OW, *A & SkyTeam alliances;
- That TB Note the growth of internationally-focused 'foreign' airlines vs. the consolidation of US-based airlines (and consequently their FFPs).

This is what I weas driving at with this suggestion on the previous page.

I don't think the moderator/TB discussion are helpful either. It gets so personal so quickly. Which is just sad because I think we all share the same goal of making FT the best place it can be, which would be made so much easier if people werent so quick to get their backs up.

After all, ALL ideas have merit...some simply have more merit than others. @:-)

And that said, there are some ideas with lots of merit here and I hope people keep throwing more ideas into the mix!

To me this implies you are suggesting TB members miss "vote after vote" deliberately.

I can't think of one TB member who never missed a vote on something. I certainly did, the TB Presdient did, and all other members did now and again. All TB members are volunteers, and surprise, surprise, some actually work for a living, and have private lives. @:-)

The only time I can recall consecutive "vote after vote after vote" were missed was if a TB member was suspended.

That same deal applies to moderators who are suspended - they also can't vote or post. As you will know I am certain. ;)

Any TB member can be removed by a vote of the TB if they miss more than 3 votes IIRC. That has been the case for very MANY years.

That rule exisits in writing, the system exists, and it works. No need to re-invent that wheel.

Have you any evidence that TB "refused to act" in such cases?

Of course you don't. :rolleyes:

I can assure you such things were vigorously discussed.

That's music to my ears. Making the TOS clear and specific is a major challenge, before we even try to address questions on which reasonable people will disagree.

I would expect development of a sufficiently specific TOS to become highly contentious. That's actually a good thing, because it allows one big public debate to replace hundreds to thousands of private debates between moderators and posters. The more intense the public debate, the more time and energy it is saving, and the more value it adds to FT.

One of the things that I think might be useful -- as such discussions are for any organization from time to time -- is for the TalkBoard to discuss the merits of making a recommendation to Randy that the TalkBoard be disbanded, and that if and when Randy wants advice or input he'll ask some folks on an as-needed and ad hoc basis. I believe that long ago PremEx suggested this approach, which I still think has much to commend it.

I don't think that I am breaking any confidences by saying that this suggestion has already been brought up for the agenda in the private TB forum! ;)@:-)

Another idea would be to simply make the Moderator Corps the de facto TalkBoard.

I personally don't think that either of those ideas have much merit, but they are certainly worth thinking about.

And yet another thought would be for the standing TB to simply commit an act of mass seppuku, or hari-kari as it’s commonly known, thus sparing Randy and the TB members any potential indignation.

Uhh, neither the Talkboard nor the voters matter. The guy who runs the board has clearly stated that moderation is not part of the Talkboard's purview.

The number of members (because despite what you seem to think, moderators and talkboard members are FT members first) who are moderators on the Talkboard is irrelevant. What matters is what Randy thinks on that particular score. I don't understand why this whole "elect non-mod talkboard member" mantra persists, because it's irrelevant.

If you have a problem with "absolute power," I'd discuss it with the benevolent dictator. I have a sneaking feeling I know exactly what he'd tell you.....

Don't stain the floorboards of the Black Helicopter (tm), please.

I did not say that. I don't particularly care why they are missed, frankly.

A perusal of the published voting history indicates that there are TB members who have not missed a vote during their term in office. Want to try again?

You miss the point (again): I (and many other FT members who have watched it happen) don't care about why votes are missed.

And on this point, there is a sure-fire way to avoid it--live within the TOS. Yet another area in which the TB materially differs from, say, the moderators: there is a proscribed level of adherence to the TOS which a mod has to maintain--once certain thresholds are crossed, they can no longer remain as a moderator.

Interestingly enough, as mentioned above, moderators live by a much more stringent code. There are half a dozen current or former Talkboard members (yourself included) who are ineligible under the current rules to be a moderator. Go figure.


A perusal of the voting history indicates that doc, for instance, missed literally a dozen or more votes. The Talkboard at that time, including you, refused to remove him. The system did not work. You were part of demonstrating that it's about protecting political allies instead of doing the right thing for the FT membership.

Wrong :rolleyes:


There is, of course, zero evidence of it. The facts indicate that you were part of a Talkboard that refused to remove a member who missed vote after vote. There is not posted for the FT membership to see that indicates otherwise.

The reason why making the vote automatic is to prohibit the backroom dealmaking and stalling that we've seen in the past when members have missed vote after vote. As was demonstrated, trying to defend what has happened in the past is both laughable and impossible.