Spiff

TalkBoard Meeting 2008
April 25, 2008
2 pm to 6 pm
Arizona Biltmore Hotel, Hohokam Room (Valley Wing, fourth floor, north side)
Scottsdale, AZ

Present: techgirl, Spiff, bhatnasx, lucky9876coins, Punki, kokonutz, gleff, Randy Petersen
Absent: Jenbel, Cholula


Introductions were made. Ground rules for the meeting were laid out.

Randy prefaced the meeting by saying there were no off-limits topics. Randy updated the group with the status of Internet Brands and their servers. A test server has been created for the purpose of testing new plug-ins such as Ignore Thread, Search, and re-energizing new users. ETA on these three new plug-ins is mid-June 2008, or approximately 45 days. Plug-ins are selected by user input and research by FlyerTalk.

The TalkBoard has been asked to examine the process for users requesting handle changes. The TalkBoard was also asked to examine the entry requirements for Coupon Connection and Omni. Should a more subjective admission policy for these two fora be adopted?

Randy said that FlyerTalk Reviews can be deleted if the TalkBoard votes accordingly.

Randy declined to disband the TalkBoard.

Randy reaffirmed the decision that Omni posts counts will not be restored. There is still the possibility to amend the TOS so that they do count in the future, but they will remain uncounted in the meantime.

Moderators, and anyone else in good standing may run for TalkBoard. The TalkBoard forum will not be made read-only by the membership.

The proposed new TalkBoard guidelines were introduced. It was decided that they would be worked on section-by-section, rather than as a whole. The best time to hold annual TalkBoard elections was discussed. There will be no geographic requirement for a certain number of members to reside outside the United States. Other topics regarding the election were discussed: what is the minimum participation time for a new user to vote in the TalkBoard election? How can elections be promoted better? The possibility of election rigging was discussed and it was concluded that it is a very remote possibility. Legitimacy of representation was also discussed (what activity level makes a member a participant?) Bigger picture: who do we represent? What are acceptable electioneering guidelines? Acceptable electioneering parameters will be examined. The TalkBoard guidelines were discussed and amended. Amendments to motions, particularly motions on the floor were discussed. The role of the TalkBoard president was discussed as was moderation of the TalkBoard forum.

There was a short break.

Obtaining better information and feedback from the members was discussed. Could TalkMail be used to better communicate what the TalkBoard is doing? The TalkBoard liaison will work with the moderators of the public TalkBoard forum on the matter of maximizing user participation. The roles of the TalkBoard officers and TalkBoard members’ interaction with the public were discussed. Formal requests for input will be made by the TalkBoard liaison. Any discussion about these duties should be raised in the private TalkBoard forum. TalkBoard members should take great care not to appear to be speaking for the TalkBoard itself when interacting with members.

Increasing member participation was discussed. Some questions raised were: “What are we trying to accomplish?”, “How many new users do we get annually?” “Could the proposed Newbie Forum help?” “How can we increase users’ comfort levels?”, “Can a lot of new users be effectively supported?”, “Is activity down?” “Are too many people being told to ‘do a search’?”.

The idea to create Ambassadors for the forums was made and widely accepted. Ambassadors could be charged with welcoming people to a forum, directing their questions, and reducing the over-all “snarkiness” found in some forums. Randy stated that FT is looking at a plug-in that will track user activity and contact users who fit certain parameters like last visit/participation, and can better tailor the welcome process for new users. “Dead” users can be purged from the system if a list of parameters is used to determine if a user is no longer active. The possibility of using surveys was discussed. Engagement and re-engagement of users was discussed. The question of what makes one a participant was raised, vs someone who just uses Google to get the information he/she needs without otherwise participating. The possibility of more forum FAQs and pushing the Wiki concept was discussed. The question of restricting access to certain forums to newbies was raised. The possibility of having a TalkBoard chat was discussed.

The question was raised as to whether all official programs should have their own forums. Also, metrics for opening and closing forums were discussed. It was generally agreed that having quantitative metrics for forum opening/closing would not be a good idea. Randy mentioned that the new Virgin America, Qatar, and Turkish forums have had a positive impact on FT.

Civility in the forum was discussed with the hope that the tone of today’s meeting would be reflected in our interactions with each other online.

Action Items:

Discussion, Amendment, and Approval of Talk Board Guidelines
Election Issues/Parameters
Ambassadors
Coupon Connection access
Coupon Connection Guidelines

The meeting adjourned at 6pm.

Anglo Large Clawed Otter

The Forum Ambassadors idea sounds like an excellent idea, as I truly wonder how many persons (who might otherwise become contributing members) get turned away after a first post from general snarkiness or being "put down," because their question happens to be one that regular visitors have seen (and perhaps even answered) dozens of times.

The flipside to this is that it's a bit of a sad commentary that things have gotten to the point where Ambassadors are even required. It's not terribly difficult to type "Welcome to Flyertalk," then politely point out where a Forum FAQ (or other resources) might be, as a point of future reference. It likely takes far more time and effort to craft some crass remark. Even "do a search" appears to have fallen out of favor, in the odd case resulting in rants or diatribes.

What's this about purging "dead users?" Is it eating up a significant amount of system resources?

BiziBB

Though the issue was not included in the minutes and may well not be an issue, can TB members please update us on whether as a group, you will considering checking the Town Hall page and update it as appropriate?

Town Hall is the official page for members to offer to help out and as a guide to what TB is doing. (TB thread on Town Hall is here)
Hopefully your actions (parts of the minutes, where appropriate)can be put on that page and the links for volunteering can be checked to see if they are working.

Thanks for the minutes.

magiciansampras

Thanks for the notes.

I didn't realize Randy was there.

essxjay

Thanks for posting, Spiff.

majorwibi

Thanks Spiff for posting this up!

Who decides what is good standing? It seems to me that if a moderator (who was also a TB member) decided that banning someone for a period of time was prudent in them winning an election that it could easily go unchecked. I have no issues with moderators being TB members but I would like to see some more details on how "good standing" is determined.

Was it voted on the TB not being given read-only public access? Or was this a mandate by Randy?

How will the liaison be chosen? By public vote or by TB voting or will Randy choose? IMHO the liaison should be someone who the general public feels comfortable with otherwise the whole purpose of a liaison is defeated.

Punki

Yes, majorwibi, the issue of what is "good standing" presents a very interesting question. I personally feel that each and every FlyerTalk who can post is a member in good standing. Unless and until there is a clearly defined, regulated, and equitably enforced system of due process, suspensions, as well as the number of suspensions a member may have previously received, are IMHO simply meaningless.

We certainly did not vote on keeping the private TalkBoard forum closed during our meeting and, I am sorry, but did not take clear notes during Randy's presentation. Nothing that I know of would prohibit the TalkBoard from making and passing a motion to open the private TalkBoard as read only. Of course, even a unanimous vote to do so could be overruled by Randy without any explanation being required on his part.

In this published summary, the word liason refers to our elected TalkBoard Vice President. The Vice President really has no liberty or power whatsoever, but simply posts motion, votes, etc., as directed by the TalkBoard as a whole. In this instance, Spiff, in his role as Vice President of TalkBoard was directed to publish the resut of the vote to approve the summary and then to post the approved summary of our meeting.

majorwibi

Therein lies my biggest concern Punki. While you feel that the number of suspensions are meaningless (which BTW I agree with your opinion) there are no doubt people who see suspensions as the very definition of a member not in good standing.

As an example there is at least one member that has been suspended for reasons that I cannot figure out (via searching and comparing the posts to the FT TOS) who I know was planning on running for TB in the fall (again based on my searches). This sort of issue is exactly why I want more details about what is good standing and how a prior suspension affects their ability to run for TB if they are currently not suspended at the time of the elections.

Punki

At this point in time, no one is restricted from running for TalkBoard as a result of having been issued prior suspensions, or bans, and, IMHO, that is as it should be and should continue to be.

Jenbel

Randy ruled last year that the private forum would remain private. IIRC, he also remanded that issue to himself (i.e. TB can vote, but he might ignore the vote), but I could be misremembering, so don't take that bit as gospel!

As for the suspension issue, I do think that anyone should be able to stand for TB, and leave that decision up to the voters. But once elected, they have a responsibility to the people who elected them to lead by example, obey the TOS and not get suspended. If they do get suspended, then they are unable to fulfill their duties.

tcook052

See Sharon's recent post with pictures of the surprise 10th anniversary for Mr. P.

Kiwi Flyer

Actually that presentation was at the Mod Workshop the next day, rather than at the TalkBoard meeting.

kokonutz

I'll say the same thing I said at the meeting and on the private TB forum: My own personal definition of 'good standing' is that the person is able to post on FT. I think that anyone should be able to stand for TB regardless of their geographic location, sex, moderator status, previous TB experience or lack thereof or previous suspensions or lack thereof or any other trait for that matter. The whole point of elections is to let posters decide for themselves whom they want to have represent them to Randy, not to let pointed-headed people like me create standards that limit the field of candidates.

Randy said that 'all options are on the table' (he's good like that). But as noted, the TB would have to vote for it and then Randy would have to approve it. Personally, I'm in favor of it. But I think there are only 3 or so TB members who would vote for it. I'll have a better idea about that number soon enough.

As noted, the "liaison" is the TB Vice President/Secretary, an office currently held by Spiffy. The VP/S is elected each year immediately after the election of the TB President.

BTW, it is my personal hope that all of these issues (and many, many more) will be reduced to a written TB Guidelines document and that that document will be shared with all of FT. But that's a loooooong row to hoe.

Punki

Anglo Large Clawed Otter

When I first joined FlyerTalk, it was a village and I felt very welcomed. Now it has become a city and it is easy to get lost and feel helpless. Maybe having Ambassadors will give people more of a feeling of acceptance and belonging.

magiciansampras

I agree. Now, how do I apply to be an Ambassador?