Punki

Actually, nsx is not a TalkBoard member, but is instead simply stating his own personal opinion which he does, of course, have every right to do.

I have never heard of such a thing as delaying action out of respect for people who previously held a position, and it really doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. The composition of each TalkBoard only lasts one year. Spending six months of that year waiting for some esoteric reason serves no one's best interests.

The general members cast their votes for those whom they believe will best represent their interests and that is what we are supposed to do--represent the interests of the general members. Except as it affects our day to day operations, it is really not our job to concern ourselves with what previous TalkBoards did or did not do.

If people like the work we do, they may re-elect us. If they don't then they should either run themselves or actively campaign for people who they think will do a better job.

I, for one, promise that I will always remain open-minded, listen to all ideas and arguments from every direction, and then vote for what I honestly believe is in the best interest of the general members. It is my sincere hope that next year's TalkBoard will do the same without worrying overmuch about us and/or our decisions. Heck, they may be a lot smarter than we are and have a whole lot better ideas.

kokonutz

Putting political processes to the side, are there ANY processes where this takes place?

When a new CEO takes over a company are his hands tied for some arbitrary period of time by the decisions of the prior CEO? How about with a newly-elected corporate board? Absurd. Shareholders would revolt.

But back to politics, the whole reason to have elections and changes in leadership is to bring in new ideas, new perspectives and new blood. Sometimes that means that decisions change. To me that's the whole point of the entire democratic process. If each new talkboard is to be bound by the decisions of the previous TB why even bother to hold elections? How else are FT posters to affect change if electing the TB members who share their vision is not going to affect changes in decisions?

Once again, to me it was a simple matter of math: add the TB members who already voted for this forum plus the new TB members who had said they were favorable or supportive of the forum and you got 6 yes and 3 no. Enough to create the forum. New leadership, new decision.

I honestly, sincerely, dont see how or why this is any more complicated than this: the posters spoke and elected/re-elected a majority on the record in favor of the forum...and yet now it appears to be more complicated than that for some reason I just dont get. I guess I would argue that I am the starry-eyed idealist, nsx...

itsaboutthejourney

why don't we let the users figure out whether your prediction is true or not? what's the harm?

Bravo!

Punki

nroscoe writes:

In theory, nroscoe, I absolutely agree with you. The reason that I am holding back on my vote (and will probably do so in the future) is to allow anyone who has a meaningful dissenting opinion the opportunity to present their thoughts.

Whindler had an excellent point earlier in this thread. It seems a bit disingenuous to seek input after one has cast their vote. That is not meant in any way to criticize any of my most esteemed TalkBoard colleagues who voted early. I am certain that they were confident of their positions and saw no reason to wait to vote. My style, however, will be to proceed with caution and give everyone a chance to persuade or dissuade me to the best of their ability for as long as the vote is open.

It's only three more days.

wharvey

Gang,

We are not here to rehash the recent election of the Talkboard.

The subject of this thread is "Comments welcome: Should VX Have a Forum?"

I encourage you to provide constructive comments to help our undecided/yet to vote Talkboard members make an informed decision.

William

Punki

FYI, there is only one more day before I have to vote on this issue. If anyone has any cogent arguments for or against the forum, please speak up now.

Thanks, Punki

ozstamps

If each new TB votes on a matter passed or rejected 5 minutes ago by the last TB there seems no need for a TB - IMHO.

The convention had always been AFAIK that matters would not be re-voted upon in short order unless there had been a material change in the circumstances - which clearly with VX has not occurred.

NickB

It seems to me that, at heart, the issue of whether TB should "respect" its recent decision on the topic is bound up to the question of whether TB is more than the sum of its parts, whether it is a collegiate body that transcends its individual members or a collection of individuals each pushing forward "their" individual view of the FT common good. To caricature somewhat, the former would be more consonant with a "European", or at least "British", political culture, whereas the latter would be more consonant with a "US" one.

If you take the former view, you are more likely to favour strong restraint before pushing forward a repeat motion on which TB has already voted in the recent past and regard this as an issue of integrity of TB as a collective body whereas in the latter case, you will have less qualms about engaging into tactical thinking and consider putting forward a motion which you regard as intrinsically sound (or consider yourself armed with a personal "mandate" from a recent election that requires you to put forward the motion) and which has a greater chance of passing now than the last time round, for one reason or another.

My own political culture would tend to push me towards the former and therefore to tend to regard as cheap and opportunistic and ultimately detrimental to the credibility of TB in the long term for TB to approve a motion which it has recently rejected where nothing has fundamentally changed on the substantive merits of the issue. But, if I give it a little more thought, I understand that others will have a different, and equally honourable, political culture and therefore a different view on the issue.
I could probably go on and on as to why I consider "my" view superior, but, because it is intrinsically bound to one's political culture, I very much doubt that anything that one says on one side or the other will have much chance of changing somebody else's perspective. These things run too deep. All I can do is hope that a sufficient number of TB members have views which are congruent with mine (and bear it in mind for the next elections ), without any expectation of whatever I or anybody else says is likely to change anything.

itsaboutthejourney

but Oz, there was a material change in circumstances: the previous TB didn't have the bold thinking of kokonutz (let alone punki or lucky) to know or act on the fact that there is a lot of passion out there for a VX forum.

This vote is a chance for TB to show the general membership it wants to be relevant, on the pulse, and get away from the infighting that has caused issues such as the VX forum to be bitterly drawn out. Randy & the general membership deserves a strong, nimble TB that has the ability to get beyond "past conventions".

Punki

Ozstamps writes:

The material change of circumstances here, is that there are new TalkBoard members. In our opportunistic American society, the specific reason that we change things is to, well change things. That is the reason we elect new presidents, senators, mayors, condo association officers, church councils, and TalkBoard members. It is also the reason that we hire new people to run companies and organizations. New people, new ideas and new approaches.

As I am not in the least a political animal or even remotely concerned with anything other that what the general membership needs, I was really hoping for input on the value of establishing or not establishing a VX forum.

nsx

I agree. It's more a matter of feelings rather than fact. Revoting the issue so soon disturbs me, but I can't adequately explain why, even to myself. And I can understand that others might feel differently. So be it.

IMHO, VX deserves a forum on the merits, but I hope that a situation like this one never happens again.

kokonutz

Are we speaking of the same British political culture which saw Gordon Brown, within a month of taking office, propose sweeping changes to the previous leader's policies including:

- Give MPs power to decide whether to wage war
- Setting up national security council
- Parliament to ratify international treaties
- Commons committees for each English region
- New ministerial code
- PM no longer to choose Church of England bishops
- Elections moving from Thursday to weekends
- MPs to hold hearings on key public appointments
- People to be consulted on possible 'bill of rights'
- Potential lowering of voting age to 16

Next to those fundamental changes a lil' old VX forum seems a pittance!

Then again, I suppose Mr. Brown is Scottish...

But how long did Margaret Thatcher wait before she started to work fulfilling her promise to de-nationalize the manufacturing and labor marketplaces? Not even a week!

When leadership changes in Britain, America or anywhere else in the world then priorities and perspectives change. The impossible becomes possible. The possible becomes unthinkable. That's the whole point of elections and change.

Jenbel

I"m sorry koko - most of those examples simply don't apply. Are you actually attempting to argue with the two British based people who have made these points that their perception of the UK political system is wrong, based on google?

Sure yes, you are right. Everything I know about the UK, having lived here all my life is completely wrong next to your google skills

You are playing fast and loose with British politics - and how it is considered - to try and make an analogy between the recent TB elections (akin to a general election) and the the resignation of Blair and replacement with Brown (much more akin to the election of gleff as TB president in some ways). Blair stepped down as leader of the Labour party, and as such, stepped down as Prime Minister. There was no change in the government - it remained the same Labour government elected in the last election. It's a nuance of British politics that is easily overlooked if you live under the Presidential system - despite Blair's best efforts, we don't.

I would point out that all of your items are announcements about white papers, green papers consultations or administrative changes. Not one of those led to a vote within a few weeks of the election - because in the UK, there can be a massive difference between a government announcing what it wants to do, versus what actually happens by the time it has finished its law making processes which includes discussion and debate and drawing up of the actual papers and bills - we're talking a good 6 months to a year for the law making process to go through from green/white paper - > bill -> act of parliament.

As such, it is very, very rare to have a straight out reversal of legislation over here. Much of what happens tends to be amendments or re-writes of previous legislation - so the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 replaced about a half dozen disparate pieces of legislation, which in turn has been ameneded by many acts, including (off the top of my head) the Protection of Badgers Act, the CROW act, the Nature Conservation Act 2004 etc etc etc.

Even when there was a U-turn on the vastly unpopular poll tax/Community Charge system of local taxation, it wasn't actually a straight 'shall we reverse our decision'? vote. It was superceded by new legislation, instigating a new system.

So I'm afraid I completely agree with NickB's characterisation of the British system, and why such moves as yours will be viewed askance by those used to the British Parliamentary system - a point I have made over and over again. NickB summed up the situation far more elegantly than I could or have though!

NickB

I am afraid that you are missing my point, koko. It is not about not making changes, or not even about making sweeping changes. It is about reversing a specific decision taken very recently. The analogy would be Parliament adopting a piece of legislation at the end of one session and immediately reversing that piece of legislation at the beginning of the following session immediately after a general election. In British political culture, this would generally be regarded as playing narrow-minded partisan politics and would normally be frowned upon. There is a world of difference between putting forward a comprehensive programme of reform and starting on these right away once elected and merely reversing a specific decision which has very recently been taken. I do not see in any of the elements that you have put forward a reversal of a specific decision which had just been taken by the British Parliament in the last session, but do enlighten me if I am wrong on this.

itsaboutthejourney

With respect to jenbel, NickB and British politics, I'll take Punki's excellent analogy any day. While FlyerTalk's reach is global, we play by Randy's rules, not the British Parliament.

As koko succently pointed out: next to these fundamental questions a lil' old VX forum seems a pittance!