It's a fair point, and individuals can chose to do that (I know it's something I'll try to do). At the same time, for a very straightforward vote, it seems like a further delay on what can be a very long and drawn out process. We've had to include a provision in there to prevent TB members moving and seconding a vote without giving the other TB members any chance to provide input already, which is new to us, because its a fairly recent phenomenon. If we say a vote has to be posted on the public board before we can start to vote, then we need to give a decent period of time for reviewing it, or members will complain. So we could end up with a 3 or 4 week period before we can actually do anything. Given that I can think of 2 votes this year where increased public output would have been useful - that's not an awful lot to be delaying all votes for. Most times, it's not the wording of the motion which needs review, it's people opinions on the vote which we want, and we can get that by listening during the voting period.

I don't mean specifically for these guidelines. TB is inviting feedback on the guidelines before finalising them, and that is good.

I meant more generally. There has been a few votes where public knowledge of the vote occurred well after some (most?) TB members had already voted. I don't know what, if any, private discussions TB members have with non-TB FTers about upcoming votes. But in terms of input from the general membership, there is a perception that it isn't happening early enough in the process in some cases.

That is what I was hoping would be addressed in the guidelines.

Jenbel - given there are a lot more non-TB FTers than TB members, anything posted publicly that is contentious is likely to be vigourously debated fairly quickly. I don't imagine there is any need for a lengthy publicity period pre-voting. Having said that, there may be a few situations where TB may wish to allow a bit more time for input to reframe the proposal to be voted on in light of the feedback.

Well I've seen complaints from members if they've only been allowed to comment on something for a couple of days, that they haven't had long enough previously, so I can only speak from my experience on that one!

I think one of the issues we run up against with feedback vs. voting period is that everyone on TB travels (this is FlyerTalk, after all). I can think of several votes where the vote was going to expire while I was going to be on a trip where my connectivity was not certain and (since we can be removed from TB for missing votes) I therefore voted before I left knowing that the vote would have expired before I returned - so I voted with the information I had at that point in time. I can actually recall one vote where I was still up in the air about the proposal and the information that was coming and wanted to leave my vote flexible as long as possible - I told TB how I planned to vote and asked that they record my vote as such unless I logged on and voted otherwise before the period expired. (I did manage to find connectivity.) I missed another vote because I tried to wait until the bitter end and then didn't have the connectivity that I thought that I would due to delayed flights.

In other cases, I've seen it where we have two weeks to get feedback and someone throws out a great point or topics in week two - that happened in the MTW issue where most of the arguments against came out towards the end of the voting period (and most of what I saw that was persuasive came out after the vote already closed). The problem is, most of TB has normally voted by the time we are in the second week home stretch.

Like Jenbel expresses, I don't know how else we could help the process as it is save for lengthening the amount of time it takes us to do anything (having a public input period and THEN having a voting period).

I believe there SHOULD be greater public input into the TB process before a motion is finalized.

Here is how the TB process currently works:

Subject possibly discussed in public forum, possibly in private forum, possibly not at all.
!
Motion made (if not, skip the rest)
!
Motion seconded (if not, skip the rest)
!
Vote posted and formal announcement in public forum (2 weeks)
!
Debate takes place WHILE TB members are voting (this debate comes with further input from the membership)

This process was found to be broken by all of the TB members. We considered a couple of changes to the process.

My proposal was to make the process as close to Roberts Rules of Order as possible. IMHO, Roberts Rules reflects over a hundred years of open-source development of a deliberative process with built-in transparency, flexibility and accountability. Here is how my proposed process would work:
This approach would allow for amendments to the original motion to be made building on the collective wisdom of both the TB as well as all FlyerTalkers as input is received.

Unfortunately, imho, I was the only TB member who supported this process. I think others may have found it too complicated or lengthy.

A majority of the TB instead supported the approach included in the proposed guidelines which can be summed up like this:

Subject introduced
!
Debate (length determined by chair determined by interest by the body, no less than 72 hours unless all have weighed in saying they have nothing further to add) + announcement of discussion of subject in public forum if not already there, if appropriate.
!
Motion made (if not, skip the rest)
!
Motion seconded (if not, skip the rest)
!
Call the question
!
Vote and formal announcement in public forum (2 weeks)
!
Debate takes place WHILE TB members are voting (this debate comes with further input from the membership)

As you can see, this is the current process with a new requirement of posting about the issue in general before making a motion on the issue. This is meant to allow at least SOME input from other TB members as well as from all Flyertalkers before a motion is made on an issue.

I don't like it as much because it significantly reduces flexibility and also allows for several different motions on the same matter at the same time, but do think it is better than the current system.

I didn't like that approach because TB members can introduce an idea, throw out a motion and get a second without any discussion at all. It's just a bad system for a non-real-time meeting environment.

No, but it DID give the TB the option of 'fixing' a bad motion based on poster input without having to start from scratch.

Alas...

I'm not an expert at politics or "rules of order" or any of this, but I do have a question and I'm sure there is a simple answer. Is there a reason why the next highest voted person wouldn't automatically be asked to join the TB? Why have someone appoint someone else if we already have the vote tallies from the previous election. Especially if the reason for the votes in the first place was to show who the general FT voting population desired to represent them.

I believe that the way that you are describing is how it's always worked in the past. This method just ensures that Randy is the decision maker if a position is vacated. That said, I'm fine with either way whether Randy is or is not involved. I imagine that it is Randy's intention (and I don't speak for him at all here, just my impression of what he would do) to pick the next highest voted candidate.

Section 4D implies public notice is only required once a call for vote has been made, which I believe is the current process. You've stated there is a proposed change to the process to publicly notify before a call for vote, but I'm not seeing that. What am I missing?

This document is an impressive body of work! ^^

Question that may help the general membership: what are some of the highlights of changes/clarifications to the current guidelines?

(ie: Motion/discussion flow, 30 Day upheld suspension causes removal, etc.)

4D applies to motions made and seconded (the new "Vote Underway" threads that appear in the TB Topics forum once a motion is made)

Here is the pertinent section in the guidelines with regard to pre-motion notice:

B. Motions and SecondsThis approach gives TB members 48 hours to weigh in and seek public input on a general issue BEFORE a motion can be made. This has been referred to as a 'public input period' as well as a 'cooling off period.'

As noted above, I argued pretty strenuously against this provision as not providing enough public input or flexibility in dealing with motions. I felt like it made a lot more sense to put a motion out there and then post it here, but then be able to AMEND that motion based on public input and TB member reaction to both the motion and public input. I felt like that would result in better motions that took public reaction to motions into account. But I was a minority of one on the matter. :eek:

Let me try this again (hopefully this time the post will stand):

Here are some of the issues that were discussed BY ME in the private TB forum USING MY OWN WORDS to describe them. :rolleyes:

Section 3:

To add the concept: "if you've had a 30 day suspension in the past you can still run for TB. However, if you incur a 30 day suspension from now on (now meaning the day the new guidelines go into effect), you are ineligible to run for the next 24 months."
I said no to this but as you see it is included. As for how other TB members felt, apparently you have to ask them.

Should the President have moderator-like powers in the private TB forum with the caveat that, unless they are already a formal moderator or are made a moderator through normal channels, this means having moderator-like powers in the private TB forum only?
I voted yes to this but as you can see it is not included in the guidelines. As for how other TB members felt, apparently you have to ask them.

Should continuing TB members be able to publicly support/campaign for flyertalkers (whether they are already on the TB or not) running for TB office?
I voted yes for this and as you can see there is no prohibition against TB members supporting other candidates in the proposed guidelines. As for how other TB members felt, apparently you have to ask them.

TB members are expected to familiarize themselves with Roberts Rules of Order and when new TB members are elected, the FT President will send them a link to the public domain version of Roberts Rules of Order to enable them to carry out that task.
I supported this and as you can see it is included in the proposed guidelines.

Section 4:
5 approaches to motions, debate and voting

Approach 1:

Approach 2:
Subject introduced
!
Debate (length determined by chair determined by interest by the body, no less than 72 hours unless all have weighed in saying they have nothing further to add) + announcement of discussion of subject in public forum if not already there, if appropriate.
!
Motion made (if not, skip the rest)
!
Motion seconded (if not, skip the rest)
!
Call the question
!
Vote and formal announcement in public forum (2 weeks)
!
Debate (this debate comes with further input from the membership)

Approach 3:
Hybrid of 1 and 2: Subject introduced then 72 hours of discussion/debate then motions allowed following approach 1.

Approach 4:
Status quo: anyone can make a motion about anything at any time and if there is a second we go straight to a vote and public notice.

Approach 5:
None of the above.


I supported approach 1 and as you can approach 2 is included in the TB guidelines. As for how other TB members felt, apparently you have to ask them.



Have I mentioned how frustrating as well as wonderful it is to serve on the TB while trying to be as transparent as possible? Yes? Ok, sorry to be repetitive.

I agree with koko's concern for allowing adequate time for public comment and refinement of proposals. However we've all seen the problem and I would expect that all TB members would be diligent in getting comments both publicly and in private before making a formal proposal. I see the guidelines as proposing the bare minimum, suitable for a simple issue. For that purpose, it seems fine. I think we can trust TB members to responsibly refine complex proposals before putting them up for a vote.

Is my understanding of this accurate?

IMHO only and using only my words to express my feelings on the matter, I believe that the proposed guidelines do continue to set the bar for accepting public input too low.

I think the need to reform our process was the result of motions that sometimes had the perception of being poorly worded/not quite right/obnoxious/stubborn/grandstanding, among other things. So not having a process to 'fix' a motion is, imho, not fixing the problem.

And in any case, I felt like everyone was acting in good faith with the best of intentions during the MTW rescission debate and yet we ended up with several similar yet different motions....becuase no formal process for synthesizing similar yet distinct approaches existed.



FWIW, here is what I had envisioned:

TB member A says 'I am thinking about furniture.'

Then 48 hours later TB member B posts a motion for a travel with furniture forum. [at this point the VP/S posts in the public forum that the motion is under discussion by the TB and seeks input]

Then based on poster input TB member C offers an amendment to change it to a travel with ottomans forum that is accepted by 2/3 of the TB.

Then TB member D offers an amendment to make the forum travel with Turks (;)) forum which is rejected by the TB.

No one says anything else so President calls the question. [At this point the The VP/S would post in the public forum: Voting underway, Motion: To recommend a travel with ottomans forum.]

THEN we'd have 2 weeks of input and debate on the final motion while voting by the TB is taking place.

Such a process is indeed more time-consuming (and I can see why I was on the minority in supporting this approach to considering TB motions) but that's only because it is more thorough in being reactive to poster input. Again: alas...