Update on FlyerTalk Cares
 

I was going to present my views on the recent questions about the FlyerTalk Cares program here on FlyerTalk earlier, but with a week's vacation staring me in the face (starting today) I decided it best to postpone posting my thoughts for a few specific reasons and hope that you'll understand.

Because the recent issue was of some concern, I didn't want to post my comments and then disappear, in case any of you had follow-up questions or wanted to exchange some dialogue with me personally or in private. As well, it didn't seem fair to our volunteers to leave them to explain, manage or edit any responses because even they know they don't speak for me. So I hope this makes sense.

I will leave you with a few basic thoughts. First and foremost, this recent single FlyerTalk Cares situation in no way underminds the value that FlyerTalk has, can and will serve for our members in support of their worthy causes. For those of you who have met me, they should be little doubt that my last act, my last penny and my last thoughts will be about what I can do for others and along the way, I've met plenty of our members who feel the very same way. While I do not see FlyerTalk ever becoming a fundraiser center, it has and will continue to be available at times to our members to seek support from others with like reasons of support - sometimes medical missions, sometimes popular and totally responsible cause like Race-For-The-Cure, sometimes very personal causes elated to our life experiences and then sometimes for the aid of our world citizens as FlyerTalk has exhibited in America, the Middle East and even on the shores of Asia. So I'd like to make clear that the program will certainly continue. I also applaud and commend the recent TalkBoard to support that.

But one of the most important things to come out of this is the role of responsibility. I have stepped forward to take all responsibility of any recent decisions by the TalkBoard for FlyerTalk Cares. I do think that any member that feels that this Board should be abolished or abandoned or punished should re-direct that emotion toward me. While there's a few things that might have been done differently in this latest action, it often does come down to a judgment call and for those TalkBoard members who have ever had any qualms about just how difficult it can be at times to be a volunteer, I think they might just now appreciate a bit more the role of our moderators who function with making judgment calls all the time. Now, having said that, what might make this whole thing work better is that I will be taking back the decision making of the FlyerTalk Cares. Not that I can make any better judgments, but because at the end of the day, I wholly can and will accept the responsibilities of those decisions. For those members who even hinted at any legal responsibility of the TalkBoard for their decisions, I''m disappointed. The facts, if you will, seem to indicate that the Board actions are always as a prelude to my overview and my responsibility. While I have individually disagreed with each member of the TalkBoard at various times on various issues, I can't see that any of you should go as far as has been done by some to blame them if that decision was contrary to the position you hold. That's simply not fair to them. Given a chance by me to review and clarify this situation, I won't think that I can change all of your views, but I do hope to at least gain your respect in that I have totally read every comment on every post related to the recent issue about FlyerTalk Cares. This took a long time, but I have that respect for you as members and will ask that you return the same respect as I put forth my view - a different set of eyes, likely different sets of values, but it will be with a similar set of concerns and care - What is right for FlyerTalk today ... and tomorrow.

Thanks for understanding and I do hope you understand the reasons for when I will write my overview of this.

Enjoy your vacation and leave the worries of the world (both cyber and brick and mortar) behind.

Wholly in reflection of my sentiments.

Excellent and as it should be. There needs to be a bit of common sense applied in deciding what goes and what doesn't - but I don't doubt that either you or TB members have that common sense.

I think it probably will. For you FT is very much 'the real world' and I have little doubt that you will adopt a practical, sensible and pragmatic approach to things (aka common sense). For me, having viewed all of the threads relating to TB's involvement in the FlyerTalk Cares thing, the one thing that has struck me is that TB seem more interested in playing politics than in applying common sense.

Randy, many thanks for the update. I think this is the perfect solution, or at least as perfect of a solution as we'll get.^

Randy,
Thanks so much for all you do! Have a great vacation! You certainly deserve one.
Patsy

Thanks very much for the explanation of the delay. I too think the whole legal threat business was an unnecessary shibboleth.

While I believe your explanation above is more than sufficient to keep us all patient for another week or two, I just wish to emphasize my gut feeling that this is not an issue where time alone will heal all wounds. I suspect I am not alone in still eagerly awaiting your views.

I am pleased that the TB corrected their (and the original poster's) doubtless unwitting error, but by taking over the entire area, it now falls on you to state your position as well. This remains an important enough issue to so many folks on FT that it is only fair to provide us all with a clear and unequivocal statement of what will happen going forward.

Bravo, Randy, and thanks! ^

Sounds like a resolution is in the making, with no further responsibility being put on the TB for vetting or approving FlyerTalk Cares requests; it's back on Randy now.

Sometimes I think this whole recent brouhaha is an example of "no good deed going unpunished." :( I know the requester personally, and am convinced of her and her daughter's good intentions. Furthermore, I'm convinced that the TalkBoard members all meant well, yet got excoriated ruthlessly for their actions. :(

Anyhow, enough of that. Have a great vacation, Randy.

You're not alone! :D My own position is that TB have fixed things themselves - but with Randy having stepped in there is a bit of a question mark over how valid TB's 'fix' is. We really need Randy's specific comments as to whether the motions that TB have passed have been acccepted or not, and his comments generally.

I think we need to await Randy's comments before getting into this debate (or even better not getting into this debate! :D), but for me the issue was never about either jan_az or her daughter who I have no doubt have good intentions - it was about the motion as worded which made no reference at all to jan_az and her daughter.

Absolutely correct on all counts. My personal view is that it's best to let this sleeping dog lie, but FT is and always has been Randy's creation and it is he that has the unquestioned right to decide what FT should do.

I can add nothing to this, other than to say, as with your other comments, I agree completely. I think there is no need for more debate -- everyone who wanted to has had their say, I think. FlyerTalk and Randy's other ventures aren't successes by accident and I'm certain he will have good, sound and well-considered reasons for whatever he decides is best for the FT community.

And what is everyone doing up so late, anyway? :)

It's obvious you have put a lot of time and thought into this issue. Thank you for always giving your all. Have a super vacation.

Bobette

FlyerTalk Cares, can and should work given the right causes. Who decides what is the "right" cause is up for debate. I believe that their are enough people on this site that care enough about others that it can work, and work well. Given the recent issues it must be looked at very carefully, however. I thank you for your time and consideration into the matter.

I agree that TB did fix this specific issue on it's own. I eagerly await two pieces of information though. One, whether Randy agrees with the "takeback", if you will, and two - and this is the more important one - even though Randy is taking back control of FTC, will there be a general policy outlined that will govern which causes are acceptable for the program? It would be nice to have an idea regarding his thought process, even though he definitely doesn't owe us that insight if he chooses not to.

I'm hopeful that we'll have these two questions answered after Randy's vacation! Hope this week is stress-free and fun!

Why have FT Approved Charities?
 

I am still wondering why we need a whole "FlyerTalk Cares" thing - after all, this is supposed to a site devoted to how to obtain the most from our travels, whether how to maximise the benefits we receive (mileage/status/whatever) or how to maximise our experiences (the general travel forums).

The very idea of "FlyerTalk Approved Charities" does not sit well with me - it seems to be going against the core aim of the site - maximising the benefits/opportunities of travel.

Now, I am not against the idea of assisting charities. I contribute a large amount annually, across a broad spectrum of causes.

But the FlyerTalk community is so diverse that there are bound to be causes which, whilst popular with some, will be repugnant to others, and this will only serve to alienate some members of the FT community, and those members who have been alienated my be highly respected members, often the source of highly worthwhile and beneficial information, members we can't afford to lose. And all for the sake of "endorsing" a few charities? I don't think it is worth it.

Again, the main aim of FlyerTalk is to foster travel, to maximise the benefits and/or experiences of our travel.

IMNSHO, we would be best served leaving the idea of endorsing charities behind us and concentrating on our core aim.

Dave

Completely agree and have asked in the recent past whether FT is wandering too far from its core mission in this and in other ways such as continued non-travel forum creation. The answer that usually comes back, to paraphrase, is that FT has grown into a large community that encompasses enough folks who want to make FT their one stop shop for other many interests including the philanthropic. I'm not fully in agreement with this 'mission creep' but given the clear support for keeping TB Cares from TB and RP it's now more a matter of refining the process for future charitable submissions not whether there should be any at all. And to that extent I would recommend moving to exclude religious charities from future inclusion, though as some have mentioned it's not always easy to see black & white in what can be a very gray world at times and in some cases.

As always, RP, I appreciate the fact you are listening to input on this matter.

Perhaps I don't venture outside the Air Canada Forum nearly enough... but is there a link somewhere that will explain what is going on?
I'm totally lost.

TalkBoard Topics forum...

In a previous post, I alluded to my belief that endorsing the specific charity at the heart of the recent uproar directly contradicted FT's aim to create a community by turning various factions of FTers against each other.

I appreciate the time that TalkBoard and Randy have put into this matter, and I applaud their attempts to respond to members' concerns. I can only hope that future developments will bring clarification on how FT will continue, through its various efforts, to build a community where all its members feel engaged and welcome.

Hope the vacation is treating you well Randy. :cool:

(my emphasis)

That remark should not go unchallenged. I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of the requester and her daughter but...

As one of the many so-called ruthless excoriators I am proud of what was done to get the TB to see the offence it was causing (and also grateful to the narrow majority of TB who made the sensible decision to rescind their approval of this dreadful institution for the purposes of soliciting donations).

Those against were not an organised clique as has been alleged but so far I could see it fair minded people who could see the damage that TB's original decision would do to FT; the offence it would cause; and the sheer immorality of lending even the most tacit support to such an institution as the church in question. As to the last point the analogy of allowing a solicitation for the part of Hamas (if there is one) devoted to re-establishing Palestinian water supplies seemed a good one to me.

I too wish Randy an enjoyable holiday. I am not one of those who thinks that all charities should be banned from raising money on FT. Neither am I in any sense a militant gay rights activist. But I hope Randy will see the extreme unwisdom and patent immorality of allowing solicitations on behalf of any institution which promotes blatant discrimination against (and through all but the most rosy-tinted eyes promotion of hatred towards) an innocent minority and will do nothing to upset the decision that TB has reached.

This is a moral issue. And to accuse those who saw it as such and argued forcefully for what is right of being ruthless excoriators is, with respect, very unfair.

I agree totally with Dave's comments.

To confuse the site's purposes with charity can open a pandoras box of ongoing debate.

Hayden

Since just about two weeks have elapsed since the start of that one week vacation, I am speculating that we have our answer -- which is that there is going to be no answer. Alas.

I am disappointed given the nature of the situation how this effectively has been left hanging. Especially given the only partial-resolution by the Talkboard and closing down of all discussion pending Randy's response.

I'm hopeful that there's a good reason that we haven't heard the resolution of this whole topic, but I have to add that the impression (erroneous or not) that I get is that this entire issue is being swept under the proverbial rug. This impression is born mostly of frustration, but - hey, feelings are always valid, since they are by nature personal - and I'm definitely feeling frustrated as time passes.

This is in no way supposed to imply that the powers that be aren't putting in their due diligence, or are waiting for all of this goes away. The inaction, and the lack of updates, just makes it feel like that's the case.

I think Randy is on Vacation.....

I have found it fascinating that the true meaning of patience is giving attention to detail, which in Randy's demonstrated wisdom, no doubt, will be forthcoming. [ and your second to last sentence suggests.]

Frustration can be, not always, an unwillingness to face ones fears. Perhaps a call to a rug doctor? [s].

While waiting, perhaps a review of some of the studies on LSD in the late 50's would give some pause to "feelings are always valid". I prefer "Feelings are real most of the time".

Regards!

Just be patient, he'll respond. He's a busy guy. Even if he's back from vacation, he has more important things to deal with, I'm sure, and this internal meta-stuff is not and should not be at the top of his list. But he did say he would address it, so I have every confidence he will, when he gets time. That may be sometime in October? Who knows.

Suffice it to say that even if he doesn't address this, the MTTW resolution (approving it for FT promotion) HAS been rescinded and IMO, that is what is most important. And I guarantee you if he'd had a problem with the TB's rescission of their approval, he'd have stepped in way long ago.

And if he's had a problem with TB's motion in the first place he'd have stepped in even further back in time?

I'm happy to agree that things have been sorted out as far as TB's involvement goes. They took a position where they suggested MTW should be an FTC approved charity and is suitable for promotion on FT, and after representation they decided to rescind that approval.

The issue now stems from the fact that a TB motion is actually nothing but a recommendation to Randy. The very specific question to Randy is whether the first motion has been approved, and has the second been approved. Perhaps more practically what some of us are looking for is simply for Randy to go on record and state taht an organisation such as MTW has no place being promoted on FT.

As far as I'm concerned, Randy has given us a response and I'm fine with it:

1. The TB motion to rescind stands.
2. Randy has taken over responsibility for FlyerTalk Cares.
3. Without running the risk of stoking the fires further with respect to Mission to the World and similar charities, the pre-motion to approve status quo has been restored.

It is fascinating but, perhaps, not surprising the extent to which concerns on FT mirror concerns in society. In the US, the expression of religion is going to become an issue in the current election campaign. It's also become a recurrent and contentious (though, happily, so far civil and respectful) matter of debate in OMNI. In the US, the issue must be addressed. On FT, however, letting sleeping dogs lie (or, at least, as long as the dogs are active only in OMNI), seems quite an adequate solution for facilitating FT's primary mission: discussion of flying and travel.

I don't need Randy to tell us which side he thinks is "right." In this case, inaction is, I think, the best course of action.

Sorry for the delay in explaining what I saw in this recent FlyerTalk Cares matter. (I've got a large new Web site I'm trying to launch, have 9 people working on it and the deadline is slipping away, something I know most of you on occasion have challenges with as well.)

The matter was the TalkBoard approval of a charity request: Mission To The World:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=853589

There was a rather long thread allowing for continual debate about the issue and more:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=850346

With the TalkBoard taking an ever increasing amount of feedback on this issue and the tone and content of the discussion thread taking a negative turn even among the members contributing, I decided to step in, assume responsibility for the issue and put forth my thoughts and actions for the future. These are those steps.

First of all I'll address the actions of the TalkBoard on this one. In hindsight there are at least two elements which may have contributed to this breakdown of communication in the interpretation of the FlyerTalk Cares program. BUT, I can find no absolute fault of the TalkBoard in approving this motion. Let's start by looking at the original request: "A daughter of a member is going to Peru for a year on a medical mission. She will be working in a medical clinic and orphanage outside of Cusco."

In reading over the discussion that lead to the approval, they did provide a superficial look at the charity cause which was being submitted. While some members subsequently brought forth deeper interpretations of the charity in questions goals and operatives, it has not been part of the assignment of the TalkBoard to peruse the charity requests in a deeper manner. It may be argued that the motion was poorly worded, but that type of analysis only comes in hindsight. What we see is a simple medical mission. A young daughter wanting to go out and help others with the funds she was seeking used only for her living expenses. Medical missions occur daily and often, while the overall sponsor may be from a faith-based organization, the personal goals of the mission personnel are simple – to help. In reading the Web site of the actual person going on the medical mission, I did not see any connection to the deeper interpretations which some members later pointed out. But the wording of the charity request soon led others to delve deep into the sponsor organization rather than the person doing the charity work and that is where the miscommunication lie. Again, perhaps clearly identifying this as a medical mission might have helped, but regardless it's in the past and we can learn from the example.

The discussion took two different paths, one an argument that this particular charity request was supporting the purported anti-gay mission of the faith-based organization in question. And that FlyerTalk Cares should not be engaged in the support of any faith-based charity. What I do know is that there was nothing in the original request, nor the inspection of the mission's requestor or that of the requestors' parent member that indicated they supported in any way what may be a hidden or deeper statement of purpose for this faith-based organization. So for those who might have been lead to believe that the TalkBoard's approval meant that FlyerTalk was becoming supportive of any action or belief such as that - I want to put that to an end right now. As many of you know, I was the one who supported and introduced individual forums on FlyerTalk for such discussion related to travel and I remain fully committed to providing such support as necessary and will not have an environment that promotes hate on FlyerTalk. As some of you also know, I have suspended some members in the past just for such style-posting practices. Now, as to whether or not FlyerTalk Cares should approve any faith-based charities. This is probably one of the more difficult decisions I'll have to make on behalf of FlyerTalk and its members. I'm aware of the church/state arguments. I'm aware that not all faith-based initiatives can and would please everyone. I'm aware that ones preference of faith is not always compatible to anothers' and I'm aware that some faiths may have tendencies of belief outside our norm, whether U.S.-centric or otherwise. That's why this is such a challenge to rule on. The easy decision is simply to restrict charity requests from anything to do with faith-based. But, I do not personally believe that this is direct acknowledgement and support of religion in that we will not and do not approve requests that preach religion, but rather to groups or individuals who are helping to improve the lives of others. All I am saying is that in the general concept of FlyerTalk Cares, we will not discriminate against faith-based organizations. So far, we have ample proof that members of FlyerTalk through the FlyerTalk Cares program lead with their heart.

In reading the 624 posts in the above thread, there were at least two situations that I was very disappointed with. One was the ongoing argument between a TalkBoard member and general member as to whether there was any new information regarding this organizations past hate message. This debate was far too personal and far too drawn out. It would have been beneficial to both if the question of more recent "evidence" was available and as well a more civil exchange. As well, I was bothered by anothers reference to legal action against the TalkBoard. There are few things I hate more than the old two-by-four threat of legal action. First and foremost, the Board serves voluntarily by election and really, it's not cool to suggest any threat in this manner. They serve in an advisory role so if you think you really want to sue the TalkBoard because they approved a charity you don't agree with, please forward the summons to me personally and keep them out of the target zone. That is just not fair to that group - all of them.

Now, a situation like this can serve a purpose. It allows us to look over the manner in which we've previously operated with good intentions a program or effort on FlyerTalk. There's inherently nothing wrong with that and some times it will lead to clarity on some practices and other times it won't. With the FlyerTalk Cares program, the few calls to end the program were like a tear to me. For all my faults, the original purpose put forth of FlyerTalk was to provide a place to exchange and grow the personal knowledge of topics such as miles, points and travel. To a large degree, I think we've done that for tens of not hundreds of thousands of others. Along with that, and primarily what drives that is the idea of giving to others. FlyerTalk for all the concept of a community, does do that in the form of FlyerTalk Cares. I can't see discontinuing this program based on this one example that may have been more clearly presented to the members.

So, FlyerTalk Cares will continue as a part of the heritage of FlyerTalk. I will step back in and resume the approval process so that there will be no additional burden on the TalkBoard. In doing so, members can request to seek support among their fellow members here:
http://flyertalk.com/cares/

As well as look over the general goals on charities that have been approved. Of the changes that accompany my resumption of the responsibilities of the program are:
- Charity requests are available for consideration to active members only.
- Charity requests must be contained to a single forum identified by the member where they feel they are most comfortable among their fellow members.
- There will no longer be any public debate in the TalkBoard forum regarding these requests. They are personal in nature, particular to a forum's active members and as such probably do not need the extensive inspection of other members who do not wish to contribute or help the cause.
- I'll make sure because of the concerns of our members that I peruse any request in a manner that will safeguard any attempt to support proselytizing.
- And finally, while for some there is still the appearance of no separation of church/state, neither is there the separation of FlyerTalk/Caring.

Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you for the update Randy.

Cheers.

Thank you, Randy.

Thank you, Randy, for the time and thought that you put into this. As always, your approach and solution are fair, effective and in the best interest of the FlyerTalk community.

One of the enjoyable things in reading your posts is you are willing to share your process in reaching decisions. A very vulnerable and valuable skill set promoting Understanding.

Bravo!!!

Best of success in your new web site!

<deleted>

deleted due to being off-topic to this thread. cheers.

I applaud your wise decisions. Brilliant idea to keep the thread specific to the appropriate forum. ^ ^

withdrawn

For the sake of clarity could Randy please confirm:

- Whether Mission to the World continues as a charity recognized as being able to solicit funds on Flyertalk? There is some confusion as the decision to revert the approvals process occurred at about the same time as TB belatedly decided to change it's vote. However, it is not clear that TalkBoard had the power to rescind its vote as it only had the power to approve charities.


This should put this matter to rest for once and for all.

I can confirm - they are not on the current approved list of charities for members to solicit donations.

The request was recalled by the member who sponsored the original request on behalf of a family member, thus taking it out of consideration to be included. Any new charity requests must be submitted to me, the TalkBoard is no longer involved in the process.

Thanks for your interest and I hope this answers your question. And you are correct, it did get a little confusing and my apologies for that.

Randy

Randy,

Will you or your team be updating the Flyertalk Cares page? It is very outdated... and updates could clear up any confusions on what is approved.

Thanks,

William

Flyertalk Cares Page

Thanks Randy for the update. Cheers.