Comments welcome, voting underway: Charitable Request - Dreamflight
 

Moved by Jenbel and seconded by gleff:

"that Dreamflight be added to the list of approved FTC charities, suitable for promotion on FT."

This poll will close 3 Aug 2008 at 5:19pm EDT

When we're being asked for comments, it helps if some information is provided - ie, either a brief para re: what the charity does or an actual url to their site. Cheers.

So who does that? Spiff strictly recounts what the motion is. I made the motion, so did the background research on this one, so only I can repeat what I said about it when writing the brief for TB - but I don't do that as a matter of policy since the briefing may contain sensitive information (and sometimes has to contain sensitive information) and no-one else can repeat what I have said. I suppose, optimally, it would be the person asking to have the charity approved, but they've already made their pitch to us ;)

And this one is very easily googleable. Surely you wouldn't be commenting on whether a charity is appropriate for FT off the basis of a brief description provided on here? :confused:

If you don't care to post something about it, I'm sure not going to care to even think about it

It seems to me that if you make a motion asking us what we think about something that you should at least make a case for yourself.

Why this charity? What do they do? How do you know them?

That kind of thing.

I understand the concerns re how much to post or posting sensitive info. that may have been disclosed to the TB. However, it is not uncommon for several charities to have very similar names. Especially if one is successful & receives a bit of publicity, others may jump in and hope to capitalize on the name. Just a quick Google of Dreamflight turned up a couple of nonprofit organizations with similar names. A link to the charity under discussion would be nice.

My WAG is that you are referring to either:
Dreamflight or the US-based affiliate DreamFlight USA.

But, there is also Dream Flight USA. And even an organization called DreamFlight that doesn't say it is a nonprofit, but "encourages individuals to learn and help maintain our airplane."

Here is a link to a previous appeal: FlyerTalk thread .

This post is for information purposes only. I just did some looking around FlyerTalk.

QUOTE=scoow;10113247]I understand the concerns re how much to post or posting sensitive info. that may have been disclosed to the TB. However, it is not uncommon for several charities to have very similar names. Especially if one is successful & receives a bit of publicity, others may jump in and hope to capitalize on the name. Just a quick Google of Dreamflight turned up a couple of nonprofit organizations with similar names. A link to the charity under discussion would be nice.

My WAG is that you are referring to either:
Dreamflight or the US-based affiliate DreamFlight USA.

But, there is also Dream Flight USA. And even an organization called DreamFlight that doesn't say it is a nonprofit, but "encourages individuals to learn and help maintain our airplane."[/QUOTE]

scoow basically summed up my thoughts/position. FWIW - I believe JenBel was referring to the UK charity, which GenevaFlyer sent me a link to yesterday when he was wondering the same thing I was - who are they & what do they do?

Whether someone wants to get into a huge description of a recommended charity, I do think at minimum a url should be provided & that I shouldn't have to & google it to figure out which one it is. As TrojanHorse said, if one doesn't care enough to provide even a link, why should I care?

In the case of the Dreamflight link that GenevaFlyer provided me, it looks like it's a UK-based charity along the lines of Make-a-Wish but with trips specifically to the Disney properties. And so I would support it (and see via the link that Spiff provided that Randy & other FTers have done so already.

Cheers.

You guys raise an excellent point and I will bring this gap in logic to the attention of the TB.

My recommendation is that along with the motion to approve, we ought to include from the application:

• The name of the charity/event you'd like to solicit support for on FlyerTalk,
• A brief description to what this charity does, and
• The charity/event’s website.

So, to be clear, the Talkboard is voting to approve the UK organization?

The UK organization listed in my link, yes.

Motion passed.
 

On 30 July 2008, the TalkBoard unanimously approved:

Moved by Jenbel and seconded by gleff:

"that Dreamflight be added to the list of approved FTC charities, suitable for promotion on FT."

Sheesh, way to leave the thread open awhile for feedback before voting, folks.

But we are required to do thorough and full research as part of the process of going through the charitable process - any motion can only be made once that research has been completed, and reported back to TB. That research is much more exhaustive and thorough than what the vast majority of people's comments are based on. Did SkiAdcock (who is the only one to have commented on this charity in particular) investigate the UK legislation on charities, whether this charity met UK requirements, whether it's paperwork was current and what it's financial statements were before voicing her approval? And if she didn't, why should her view be more important than our own decisions, based upon exactly that information.

And to be honest, if someone comes on and says 'I don't like this charity because it is a UK charity and we should be supporting US charities' - then I'm afraid I'm going to ignore that view. Because if you believe that, then you don't give support to that charity, but you shouldn't be trying to hinder others from a charity which they may want to give to. I'm willing to listen to people who have concerns about a particular charity from a regulatory manner. I cannot and will not listen to people saying a charity shouldn't be approved because they don't happen to like it - that's way too subjective, and we are not running this as a popularity contest for charities.

Secondly, charity votes are only open for a week - we took half that time to come to a vote. Why should we delay allowing someone to post their thread, when our research has already shown that the charity is bona fide and appropriate?

Splendid!

Last year, Dreamflight proved to be a tremendously popular charity with the folks on the BA forum.

Thanks TB for approving the promotion of Dreamflight on FT this year ^

What are we running it as then? I thought a popularity contest was precisely what this is, no? How else are we adjudicating between charities? Someone posts about one, a bunch of people like it, then you guys investigate and vote, right? Isn't that a popularity contest?

Nope. Our primary aim is to establish, for any charitable request, that the charity actually exists and is bona fide, and it's not just a scam which has been set up to fleece members.

Beyond that, it comes down to what each TB member considers appropriate for a charity on FT.

The main idea for publicising charitable requests was to bring openness into the process, so that those making the requests were aware that their request was in motion and hadn't fallen into a black hole.

As to the actual process, I suggest you go off and read what the application process is, since it's pretty obvious that you don't actually know.

I vote based on the worthiness of the charity, not how "popular" that charity might be.

Regardless of how 'popular' the American Airlines Free Beer for Elites Charity might be, I'd probably still vote it down.

Others, etc.

I'm just saying 1) 2 days of making the request "open" and available to other FTers to comment is not a long time and 2) it still seems like a popularity contest to me. Shrug.

But the board that this charity is intended for is wholly behind this charity. Given such a strong core of support for it, why do I need to wait around for people who aren't aware of its existence to comment on something when it's highly unlikely they'll even see the thread, unless they hang out on BA? Not everyone is a TB wonk, but we are here to represent all members, not just those who post frequently on the TB forum...

Jenbel, why not have your philosophy for all TB activities then? You could just as easily say the same should be done for forum requests. If people in the BA forum want a spinoff, why bother posting here? Just post to the TB private forum and vote.

Needless to say, I don't think your idea is a very good one. I think transparency as well as a sufficient debate period is wise. In this case I feel like we got neither. It was like pulling teeth just figuring out what this charity actually is and then we got a very short time to digest it.

Do you think that this charity should not have been approved?

Honestly - there was more debate about the AFTER vote than BEFORE the vote. If you don't agree that the charity is worthwhile don't give to it. Simple.

I don't think it is an automatic yes.


Yes let's have TB adopt that philosophy for everything. We'll create new forums for every request that comes along and then just tell folks, "Don't like it? Don't post there! Simple."

And for the TalkBoard it wasn't an automatic yes either. Research was done, and all TB members voted how they felt, based on the research done and based on the comments in this thread. Just because it looked quick and unanimous doesn't mean everyone just closed their eyes and clicked a button.

I'd love a straightforward answer though, do you think this shouldn't have been approved? You're free to do all the research you'd like and then get back to us, because it seems to me like you're more interested in just disagreeing than actually looking at the facts...

The entire point is that while TB had time to do the research, the members of FT did not. This makes me wonder why even post here about charities?

As for whether I would vote yes or no, I haven't had the luxury of time that you all had to do the research. So I don't know. ;)

I do know, however, that other charities have been nixed after proper research by the FT base has been conducted...

It's been three days since the thread was posted. Why haven't you had time? TB members only get a maximum of a week for their research...

It was 50 hours from thread opening to vote. I didn't have time to do my research in that window. But now there seems to be little point.

Shrug.

I encourage TB, as you are going through the guidelines, to rethink this whole charity approval "process."

See how you could have been spending your time instead of complaining? ;)

It's not a complaint; it is a suggestion to improve TB. But I wouldn't expect you to see it that way of course. ;)

Of course it is. :)

Your suggestions are appreciated. :)

With all due respect, magiciansampras, that's precisely what we did.

I hope a little history lesson will put every one's mind at ease.

Originally, Randy had the idea of using the community spirit of FT for the powers of good, ie, raising money for charitable causes. IMHO, Randy's got a big heart and FT's efforts in response to 9/11 and the Tsunami a couple years back reflect that.

At the same time, he wanted to enable FT members to be able to do the same: approach the FT community with charitable causes that WE are passionate about. But this, of course, is against the TOS as more or less spam.

So he asked the TB to create a process for allowing case-by-case exceptions to the spam TOS for charitable appeals by FT members.

The TB came up with first and informal and then later formal guidelines for Flyertalk Cares charitable appeals.

IMHO (since I got the fun job of helping to drafting them) the guidelines do a fine job of balancing the need to do SOME vetting of proposed charitable appeals before granting a spam waiver against the goal of keeping FT from being cluttered with charitable appeals.

To wit:
Some vetting:

• A TB member investigates the charity to achieve some small level of comfort that the charity is legitimate and not either an outright scam or a way for someone to line their own pockets.
• TB members then vote for an approval to the spam TOS exemption for that specific charitable appeal.
• It is not meant to say ANYTHING about the worthiness of the cause or as a recommendation to give. It simply says, you may post that piece of 'spam' and if other FTers want to participate they can choose to do so or not. FTers are a diverse group and what may be a passionate cause to me may offend you, but that's NOT the point. The point is that it is a legitimate charity that a FTer supports and would like to spread the word about.

Keep the clutter down:

• FT Cares solicitations are limited to a single thread
• That thread is to be clearly marked so if no one is 'tricked' into clicking on it
• Thread bumping and other TOS rules are strictly enforced.

As for the vote being noted here both in terms of a motion being made and the charity being approved, well, that's done so everyone can know what the TB is talking about.

IMHO only, it can also help possibly catch a FT Cares proposed TOS exemption for a 'charity' that the TB is being snowed about.

So, now with all that in mind (and after you have reviewed the FT Cares Guidelines we approved this Spring), how do you suggest we improve the process?

Would it be better if the threads in this forum just said "FYI: XYZ under consideration for approval"? Would it be better if there was no notice at all and it was simply presented as a fait accompli?

Speaking only for myself, I think it's fair to say the TB is always open to improving our processes! ^

^ Thank you for this reasonable and comprehensive reply (the first one I've received to my concern)! I will digest this.

And a little more historical research would point out that the first procedures were not 'informal' but 'formal' and that was the first procedure which TB used before they were revamped by koko later on - and there are still some areas which are only covered by the earlier set of guidelines and not the later ones....

The revamp was great, but it was just that - a review of what had gone before and what had worked and what hadn't worked.

Agreed. And for anyone who DOESN'T know, and I hope she doesn't mind my saying this, if you could see the private TB forum on a read-only basis you would know that Jenbel has been and continues to be the TB member who is, imho, most responsible for the success and especially the fairness of the FT Cares program.

No, I think that's something we all bring to the table.

But I'll own up to the grey hairs on getting the first iteration of the guidelines through - which experience meant I was happy to leave it to koko on the second iteration :p

Unfortunately we'll have to take your word for it. I for one believe you, though. ^

FWIW - I didn't view this as a popularity contest. I took it as stated in the OP.

My only nit is that I'd like to see at minimum a url provided so that we know which charity specifically is being asked whether to be added to the list of FT charities. As scoow pointed out in his post above w/ links to dif ones, sometimes there are similar-sounding charities.

Given that FT has members from around the world I see no reason to limit charities only to US-based ones.

Cheers.

Plus there should be a publicly accessible list of all the approved charities with, as you suggest, a link to the charity’s website. This one is a bit out of date.

And on a side note, scoow is actually a pretty young woman. But I realize it’s hard to tell the sex of a poster from their handle. :)