Randy Petersen

I'd suggest that you drop exclusive terms and names so that the document can live on for many years. As well, big deal that I founded it and the concept of TalkBoard, I'm happy to see your work and the work of our other members rather than my name in lights.

Toward that end, here's what you have:
"FlyerTalk is an internet bulletin board owned and operated by Internet Brands. Its designated representative, currently FlyerTalk founder Randy Petersen, is responsible for the day-to-day management and is referred to in this document as ‘the FlyerTalk Host.’

FlyerTalk’s purpose is to bring together frequent flyers and users of other travel-related frequency programs as well as people with an interest in those programs to discuss loyalty programs, travel and travel-related issues.

In an effort to provide maximum poster input into the content and organization of FlyerTalk, Randy Petersen created the TalkBoard and empowered it to make recommendations with regard to the management, organization and content of FlyerTalk. The TalkBoard exists at the pleasure of Randy and neither he nor any other entity is required to accept the recommendations of the TalkBoard. "

Here's what I'd suggest:
"FlyerTalk’s purpose is to bring together frequent flyers and members of other travel-related loyalty programs in a common interest to discuss miles & points, travel and travel-related issues.

In an effort to provide maximum member input into the content and organization of FlyerTalk, a member-elected Board (TalkBoard) was created and empowered with the task of making recommendations with regard to the management, organization and content of FlyerTalk. These recommendations, while just recommendations to the Host* of FlyerTalk, serve as an important foundation for the structure and growth of FlyerTalk.

*The "Host" refers to the designate of responsibility for the day-to-day operations of FlyerTalk by its owners"

kokonutz

As much as I'd like to take credit and/or blame for the thing, whether they still want something like this to be approved or not , it truly is a document that was the result of the efforts of, imho:

- jenbel, bhatnasx, luckycoins, punki, gleff, spiff, techgirl, and cholula who have been working on guidelines since this Spring. And it was hard work for each and every one of us, I assure you

- scoow, dovster, nickb, cluebyfour, attorney28, RichMSN, studentff, nsx, skiadcock, wharvey, bizibb, bdjohns1, hhoope01, haubd, lin821, ozstamps, smaug, masonp123, cameraguy, essxjay, tcook052, Kiwi Flyer, sandiego1k, obscure2k, landing gear, elmhurstnick, magiciansampras, Moderator2 AND every other FlyerTalker who took the time to read, improve and/or comment on the guidelines' development (sorry if I missed some names there that should be obvious to me! )

- all the previous TalkBoard members who set the current precedents and procedures

- the current and previous TalkBoard Presidents and Vice President/Secretaries who tracked the precedents and procedures in various places over the years

- and, of course, Randy.

All I did was try to put all the current information, precedents, procedures and consensus changes in one document.

kokonutz

Randy, as ever, your humility is...well...humbling.

Although I feel like I should put up more of a fight, I'm happy to include your suggested change.

hhoope01

Section 3.G.i still refers to the "Administrator". You may want to change that to "FlyerTalk Host"

And as others have already said, good job with this. A lot of work has been done and it is appreciated. ^

kokonutz

Great catch. Thanks!

lin821

Thank you, koko, for putting together another draft so fast.

I haven't quite finished reading this draft yet. I do have a quick thought on TB campaigning (Section 3.B.i.c).

Not to force you to play your skipping CD (), I know this is only the paper version of status quo. However, in early September, FT was upgraded, which gives us the new social group feature among others. I am not too into the social networking thingy so I have no idea how well (or bad) it can play out during "election/campaign" season. But I believe it's well utilized for any modern campaign. Since our status quo is the pre-social-group era, it only covers (mass) email & PM. Nothing social group-wise was ever mentioned as a guideline.

Would it be possible to add the social group thingy, where it's deemed fit, to this draft? Or do you think we should wait till the second round with other "potential controversies?"

Like I said, I haven't finished reading it. I am not sure if other newly added/enabled features should be addressed in the new guidelines as well, especially FTers are still fuzzy about what are new .

Social group is the one that stands out at this point.

ozstamps

Seems like a great effort, for a concensus set of sensible road rules kokonutz. ^

Glen
.

cblaisd

+1 Well said.

They shouldn't be treated differently if they're "members first," imo.

ClueByFour

In the absence of an automatic removal (pending an upheld suspension by the host), this is weak and coddles the political nature of the TB. I am disappointed, but not surprised.

kokonutz

That's a pretty good point so I threw in the phrase 'Social Networking' under the 'do not abuse during an election' section. Seems like a perfectly natural outgrowth of the existing ban on abuse of email or PM.

I also made a bunch of technical corrections (capitalizations, periods, alignment) that sccow noticed.

Thanks again for all the input and edits.

Keep 'em coming!

RichMSN

Hasn't this horse been beaten, voted down, and buried?

nsx

A consensus proposal would have included a removal clause emphasizing Randy's central role. What we see here is reminiscent of fights in Congress, with one side wanting X and the other side not wanting X. Passing a "clean bill" containing only Y is not a compromise. It's a win for the side not wanting X.

If I were on TB, I'd vote against this just as I would have voted against the last one, for the same reason: it's not a consensus proposal. C'mon people, this isn't really that hard if you really want to come to agreement. And if you'd rather ramrod something through than develop a consensus proposal, you're moving TB further toward being just another cesspool of politics.

kokonutz

Again, all I am trying to do is get down on paper the way things actually operate today plus a few additions that have consensus support.

Even if you don't like the way things operate today, what's wrong with writing them down so everyone knows how the TB operates today.

For example, we have a new TB member as of yesterday. Isn't it a VERY good thing that berlinflyer can now look at this document and understand what his responsibilities and obligations are!?

When I was elected to TB I had to figure it out by trial and error and that was a very frustrating process for me and for the continuing TB members. I had to be smacked down several times as I bumped up against TB rules and procedures that I didn't even know existed! That's how I got the bright idea to get this project rolling in the first place.

I'm happy to continue debating over the contentious questions of how and when and by whom an elected TB member ought to be removed, but that's another debate for another day.

The purpose of this proposal is to write down the precedents and procedures as they exist today...so that they are written down. It's not the END of the process. It's a BEGINNING.

techgirl

Well, some of us had high hopes of passing the last set of guidelines which WAS a consensus proposal. We agreed back at the working session in Phoenix in April that we would form that document through straw polls on controversial issues and that we would all support that document even if it had small things that we personally disagreed with but the majority supported.

The majority vote on the straw polls on each issue is what went into the version that was put up for vote last month. And then some of the TalkBoard members decided to go against their original word to support the document drafted based on the original straw polls.

Some of us are trying to get a compromise document together but one of the opponents of that process now wants to push through a completely different set of guidelines instead - why, I am not entirely certain.

nsx

I believe that the contentious issues should be tackled first, with the resolution being approved unanimously or very nearly so. Then deal with the easy stuff AFTER everyone has learned how to cooperate. The result will be a more harmonious TB.

It's what our parents taught us: eat your vegetables first and the dessert last. I know that politicians don't operate that way, but IMHO TB members should not act like politicians.

The only reason not to do the hard part first is if you believe it's impossible, or if you want to drag your feet and not do it at all. If you want to admit to either of these, I will understand your position.

Other TB members might reasonably conclude that it's the latter, based on your firm opposition to any suspension provision. Don't be surprised if other TB members do not wish to cooperate with what they could reasonably believe to be a delaying tactic.

Timing matters. Do the hard part first, not last. You'll come out ahead in the long run, and so will the TB.