I think there shouldn’t even be duplicate VAs because it creates confusion and arguments.
Then we can include discussions on mergers, change of names, and how they are different. Or we can also do monthly checks on duplicate VAs and eliminate the one doing poorer.
I’m on the IFVARB, what’s your idea? Feel free to share it with the body of the Kirk here too. That’s why Josh created the thread.
As Constititions go that’s not too bad. The only slight issue might be forcing a quora for set meetings when members are scattered across different time zones. Being that it is essentially a game I’d argue that meetings and minutes aren’t a requirement (a best efforts recommendation may work though) of the IFVARB. We don’t ask that off the mods here and as long as we’re open and honest I don’t think there needs to be quite that level of administration. Updates to an existing thread or a pinned IFVARB ‘latest news’ thread may be a simpler answer?
I think that this is a good idea, as a starter for ten ( needs a bit of fleshing out after I have walked the dog)
In no particular order need to include the following :
- IFVARB Mission Statement and TOR.
- definition of a VA
- limitations of the IFVARB
- make up of experience of board members
I shared this with some of the the higher staff in a pm
I’ve edited @Danman’s brilliant work to start us off, and made some changed of my own. What do you guys think?
I think we should keep it as the IFVARB Constitution, I like it :)
Adding on too it. The IFVARB MUST have 1 board member with real world aviation knowledge hand picked by the community with a popular vote. If there is a tie or no real winner is chosen then the IFVARB will decide the owner by a vote among themselves. Reasons: it’s aviation why not have a member who knows aviation and give his/her ideas to the board on how improve things. Also, this member must nit be a IFC moderator or staff member for IF
Is that anything to do with the fact that you have RWA knowledge :-P
No was seriously a suggestion. Hence why I said vote:) Bc there’s other that have more knowledge than me
Yeah, it is a shout but I thing elections are too tedious. Plus many of the RWA people here have no involvement with or are anti-VA.
Not really. But take it how you wish. I can’t control others minds or opinions
Section V has already stated the standing of outside advisors.
No, there needs to be transparency in the IFVARB. I have sat in too many board meeting where minutes aren’t kept and it came to bite them in the butt afterwards. It’s better to cover their butts and also have the information kept in the open instead of closed doors.
Why? And what do you define as ‘real world knowledge’? Is that someone who has a PPL? CPL? A controller, someone who works on the tarmac? How about cabin crew, plane spotters or even someone who works in Starbucks at Edinburgh Airport? They all have ‘real world aviation knowledge’, just at different segments of it. Additionally how do they prove it? Should we see certificates or get references from their bosses?
I’m on the whole happy to see a constitution and set of guidelines to keep everything above board but there’s a real danger of over-engineering the whole thing and micro-managing it to death. If we’re going to insist on guidelines or a constitution for IFVARB then there must be the equivalent or similar for how VAs are run. Unless there is one and I’ve not seen it of course!
Yes but this isn’t a Board in any real meaningful sense. It’s a group set up to manage a set of imaginary airlines on a mobile platform. I’m not convinced regularly minuted meetings are required. An update from the chair should be sufficient for something like this. There’s nothing particularly ass-bitey in any of it because it’s really not all that complicated.
Not too bad, but there isn’t enough transparency. I drafted it with transparency in mind. If the IFVARB is to gain the trust of members and VAs alike, they will need to be transparent. You can have the moderators enforce the trust and remove anything questioning the IFVARB, but that won’t be for the betterment of the spirit of collaboration that should exist between the IFVARB and the VAs. The lack of a unanimous agreement requirement is also very dangerous because that is guaranteed to start rifts. There should be some public list of requirements that VAs should meet, it should be an arbitrary yes/no decision based on the applicant meeting those criteria, there is no place for any other considerations other than that. If the members of the IFVARB makes their decision of approval/rejection on reasons other than those criteria and then not publish them, that will open a whole new can of worms when some VAs might feel they’re being treated unfairly.
@IceBlue, this is not a good idea. If advisors are chosen by the chairperson, those advisors are inclined to agree with the chairperson, they’re supposed to be independent outside advisors. I do like the rotation schedule better than the original one.
I don’t think so either, but these people take it very seriously, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t treat them as such.
Yep, I accept that. My worry is that we make it to heavy on the admin and it puts people off. This is mostly being run by youngsters (without being patronising!) and I think of we throw a bunch of extra requirements at them it’ll just scare them off.
Thanks goodness some says it. IFVARB needs to be shot down and a new one established with adults and not kids