This is a question, not a flame: Is the Ambassador Program going to be like a school bond issue that keeps being put to ballot until it wears down people and is passed?

Not as far as I am concerned. ;)

Nor I.

We're just trying to get some wording here that everybody can agree on and then it may go to another vote. But I can't see it continually run up the flagpole in the future.

But don't forget that it only takes two TB members to make and second a motion. So if we have two who are very determined to see this proposal happen, there's no limit to how many times they can call for a vote.

But also don't forget that it takes a 2/3rds majority to pass and last time the vote was 2 Yes, 7 No.

That's pretty much my reaction to the overall reaction to this program as well.

As matters stand, it appears that this idea is a non-starter unless someone can come up with a brilliant idea that addresses the seemingly contradictory goals of
- keeping moderators from feeling threatened by the program
- not creating a program that is simply 'junior moderators' or 'moderator-identified-assistants' and
- keeping the identification process simple, fair and open.

Lord knows I have tried and failed...

Since this was something that Randy discussed with both the TB and apparently the moderators in PHX, perhaps he will weigh in on the matter and both the TB and the moderators will be willing to take his advice and direction with regard to this concept???

Also the selection of and removal processes need to be addressed, in my opinion.

Personally, I think the TalkBoard should shelve this ambassador idea as a formal proposal for the time being. Instead, all interested parties should focus on how they can improve the environment of FT without such a proposal telling them how to do it.

While goodness knows everyone should swing by this forum from time to time to update themselves on planned forums and/or FT changes has any thought been given to asking the wider FT membership for input on this matter? Perhaps a banner at the top of each forum soliciting feedback as is done with other matters. Is this really that important to the average FTer or newbie? If the answer to that question is 'no' should TB proceed with yet another reworked and reworded proposal or TB motion?

Not stirring the pot, just asking questions...

One could take the same stance with any motion.

One could take the same stance with TB elections. Where there have been stickies or announcements and emails a go-go for some elections, and it did not alter the voter turn out greatly.

The fact is this Forum is here for those who wish to read it, or voice their concerns.

The Northwest Airlines and Hyatt forums are here too, and I choose not to visit them. But 1000s of others do.

Works for me. Every member chooses what interests them most. :D

Glen

I'm very sorry, that simply isn't true. I've seen the figures for the last few elections (I really cannot recall if the votes from the last election were made public or not, so I'm not going to go into detail in case they weren't!) and your statement is not one which can be made with any degree of credibility. The election in which I was elected had one of the highest turn outs we'd ever seen, principally because of the use of the 'I voted' icon on the profiles of those who had voted. There are ways in which we can increase awareness of TB elections and they can be pretty effective.

In answer to your more general point, I tend to agree. I am completely in favour of letting specific forums know when we are discussing things which will affect them, to get feedback from those that use the forum. For more general things, such as this programme, I'm sure most board members would quickly learn to ignore board-wide announcements from us saying 'look what we are talking about now' and to some they would be actively annoying. TB elections occur once a year - the rest of our work goes on all year round.

TB can certainly improve communications - how we do that remains a matter of debate, but knowing how much some members hate stickies and announcements and such like, I'm pretty convinced for general matters that is not a route we should be going down.

What you just posted actually confirms what OzStamps said. It was because of the "I voted" icon that there was a high turnout, not the stickies.

The last election, which had the stickies but not the icons, had a very low turnout. (Yes, the votes were made public as shown in this announcement by Randy):

I personally thought (and still do think) that the Ambassador program was probably the best idea that came out of the TalkBoard meeting. Apparently everone else also thought so at the time. On May 6th, Spiff posted:

"Increasing member participation was discussed. Some questions raised were: “What are we trying to accomplish?”, “How many new users do we get annually?” “Could the proposed Newbie Forum help?” “How can we increase users’ comfort levels?”, “Can a lot of new users be effectively supported?”, “Is activity down?” “Are too many people being told to ‘do a search’?”.

The idea to create Ambassadors for the forums was made and widely accepted. Ambassadors could be charged with welcoming people to a forum, directing their questions, and reducing the over-all “snarkiness” found in some forums."

Since Lucky9876Coins and I were given the task of putting together a proposal, that is was we did. I thought the original proposal was perfect, simple and workable. Unfortunately, a wonderful idea became a political football and that is really sad.

I think the new proposal, (sorry koko, I know you gave this mess your best shot) is way too complicated, convoluted and fraught with snags. It will never go anywhere.

As B747-437B writes:

I wholeheartedly agree.

While the accusation has been levied that TalkBoard would suffer from cronyism, I can assure you all that that is not the way things work. We discuss things, we often disagree, learn from one another and then vote totally independently of one another.

Here are some of the truly wonderful things about TalkBoard making decisions. They are fair, honest and democratic, even if you disagree. If you have questions about their decisions, you can ask in public. If you don't like their decisions, you can complain in public, in private, or in a book if you would like with absolutely no fear of reprisal. And, here is the best part. If you really don't like them, you can vote them out of office. You can even campaign against them (or for them) if you please. Guess what, it's a democracy!

In the words of the immortal Sir Winston Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."

Sorry, nsx, but there was never any intent that the Ambassadors serve as mini-moderators, moderator assistants, or moderators in training. The goal was simply to make FlyerTalk a better place by encouraging more people to reach our and help other people.

I disagree with both of your statements.

The original proposal was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. That's why I and 6 other people voted against it. Politics had nothing to do with that vote. Politics have nothing to do with any current or future proposals, as far as I am concerned.

If some future ambassador proposal makes sense for FlyerTalk and isn't filled with riders and rules that I don't agree with, then I will probably vote for it. "Politics" as you so quaintly put it, don't drive my decision, nor do I suspect they drive much of the rest of TalkBoard's decisions.

I agree with Spiff and disagree with B747-437Bs assessment. Indeed, given all of the posts in this Forum, I am troubled that Punki and Koko are so quick to assign credibility to B -747-437's post. So many FT'rs have weighed-in. Yet, one post, in particular, seems to shine by 2 particular members of Talk Board. I would like to think that this proposal is being evaluated objectively.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case. I could refer you to several specific votes which prove just the opposite but would prefer to honor Moderator2's request that we remain on topic.