[Bob Kuczewski]

Warren,

I've read the Hunter Biden topic again, and as hard as I tried, I could not find any redeeming hang gliding value. So I am also going to vote yes:

  YES  

I believe that makes it unanimous.

Members of the Board,

I have requested an amendment that a link be left in the Blog Forum so that the topic may still be found in its original location. Such links do not rise when the linked topic is updated, so they eventually drop out of sight as other topics are updated.

I believe Joe accepted my amendment to leave a link, but my amendment was not explicitly accepted or rejected by subsequent voters. So it's not clear whether such a link is intended by the full Board or not. Given the ambiguity, I have currently chosen to leave the link to minimize any discontinuity to the forum. I felt that was the "least harm" option. If any Board members object to the link please cast a vote expressing "No Link". If there are 3 or more such "No Link" votes, then I will remove the link. Otherwise, I'll leave things as they currently stand.

Thanks for your participation.

[wingspan33]

Since it has been seconded, I now vote   YES   to Joe's suggestion/motion.

Point of Order: Scott, your vote may not be counted if you are not a Board Member. For clarification, does your vote here signify that you wish to be a member of the Board at this time?

In the relevant post, at the end I made my decision conditional. While my specific interests have not yet come about, I see this passed motion as a step in the right direction.
It is completely understandable that how I worded things was meant to indicate the opposite.

[wingspan33]

I'd like to state that the full topic you all are voting to move is about a hang gliding road trip across the full diagonal of the State of Kansas.
Ten hours of hard driving, in both directions, from the greater Kansas City metropolis, to the windswept plains of the Kansas/Colorado/Oklahoma border.
I was drained when I left after work at near midnight, from the east river bottoms rail yards, and I was drained 60 some hours later when we got back.

Is this vote to now restrict [ . . . . . . ] stories in the blog area?

Warren,

I've read the Hunter Biden topic again, and as hard as I tried, I could not find any redeeming hang gliding value. . .

Same here. Warren, It takes little time and very little effort to READ your words in your Blog topic. At no time did you write anything about driving across Kansas. I'm sorry if you don't remember what you wrote, but it's all there (or not there, in this case) in "black and white" as they say.

[Bill Cummings]

By Bob K.
“ Such links do not rise when the linked topic is updated, so they eventually drop out of sight as other topics are updated.“
I’m okay with allowing the thread to sink to the bottom as the post was made before the vote to move
non - HG discussions off of the front page. I think new OMD appearing on the front page should be moved without a link.
By me saying nothing Bob’s action to leave a link on this particular thread would be
understood as me not having an objection. For the record I have read that Bob intends
to leave this particular link and I have no objection.

[Bill Cummings]

Re: Free Speech Zone / Off-Mission Discussions
This message is given as notice of a recent change to our Free Speech Zone as unanimously voted on by the Hawks' Trial Board of Directors.

The Hawks forum establishes five (5) types of reporting; germane to this notice is, "The Reported Message Is Off Topic", reporting category.

As President of the Trial Board of Directors, I have decided to report any posts NOT addressing hang gliding. Those categorized off-topic posts, at the discretion of the Moderator, may be moved to the appropriate Forum Thread, such as "Off-Mission Discussions."

I will only be reporting posts that were made after the latest OMD vote.

[Bill Cummings]

This is a request for input concerning political posts that do not stay on topic with our mission statement, To Promote,Protect,and Serve Recreational Hang Gliding (.)
It is not my desire to delete political posts that are unrelated to hang gliding but to relocate them in order to avoid off topics in the designated Hang Gliding General thread.
Should we entertain a motion that specifically mentions political posts and state what the US Hawks policy will be?

[Bob Kuczewski]

As President of the Trial Board of Directors, ...

In my opinion, the "trial" has been a complete success. The Board has addressed some very thorny issues and has done so in a very professional manner. I have been on both the winning and losing side of the Board's votes, and that's as it should be.

At this point, I think we should remove the word "Trial" from the name. We might replace it with a word like "Advisory" to reflect that I still hold veto power, but even that's not strictly required (is Congress "advisory" just because the President can veto?). This Board has done a far better job (faster, fairer, cheaper) than USHPA's Board has ever done. Let's end the trial and make it official.

With regard to moving posts, I will tend to be a vote opposing moves, but that's OK. we can have differences of opinion and still function properly. In fact, it's important that we have differences of opinion so we can keep our decision making machinery (motions, discussions, voting) in good working order. We are setting an example for how to run an organization openly and fairly. And I think we're doing pretty well.

Thanks to all of my fellow Board Members (past and present) for making this work.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Sorry for the previous diversion, but that is the nature of conversation. Bill's use of the word "Trial" triggered a thought process in me that may not have been what Bill was intending. Was my thought process about the "trial" nature of our Board "Off topic" or was it part of the natural multi-dimensional flow of all human discussions? The latter is what I don't want us to lose.

We all have our own agendas, and we will all focus on the parts of a discussion that interest us most. That's natural. I think that keeping a topic "on track" is best done collectively by the participants themselves just as it is in real life. If you're sitting around the campfire having a discussion, and someone throws a curve ball into the conversation, do you call for "the moderator" to remove them? Of course not. Someone just says "that's not what we're talking about" and nearly everyone agrees. Such "soft" social pressure is far better for the group than appointing a "discussion bouncer" to shut people down. I would rather see that kind of soft social pressure applied whenever possible before invoking the heavy hand of a moderator.

My $0.02 worth.