TalkBoard Topics - Motion Passed: Amend Talkboard Guidelines - Term Limits

Vote: Amend TalkBoard Guidelines - Term Limits

Moved by nsx and seconded by SkiAdcock:

The TalkBoard recommends modifying the TalkBoard guidelines as follows:

Add a new paragraph 3.B.i.e.
e. TalkBoard members who are subject to the term limit defined in Section 3.D.i shall be ineligible to be candidates in the current year.

Revise paragraph 3.D.i
i. TalkBoard Member: The term of a TalkBoard member shall be two (2) years. There is no limit to the consecutive or cumulative number of terms to which a member may be re-elected. Five TalkBoard members shall be elected during odd numbered years and four TalkBoard members shall be elected during even numbered years. Term Limit: A FlyerTalk member is ineligible to be a candidate in the current TalkBoard election if by the end of the election period the member will have served on the TalkBoard more than three years out of the preceding four-year period.

This vote will close on December 27, 2011 at 6:30pm pm or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:

A motion shall pass if at least two-thirds of the yes or no votes cast by TalkBoard members are ‘yes’ and a majority of the total TalkBoard membership votes 'yes.'

The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

So while there is already a thread and discussion on this general topic and it is safe to assume that TalkBoard members have reviewed that thread, this thread is about this specific motion.

Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback in either this thread or the other discussion thread. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1290400-talkboard-considering-term-limits-seeking-your-input.html

Cheers.

I support this proposal ^^

My reasons for support of term limits:

I belong to some professional associations that have a term limit of X amount of terms followed by Y time off before being able to run again at Z time. It's designed to have talented people who are familiar w/ the org serve & use their wisdom to better the organization, but not end up w/ 'career' board members or 'cartels' (cartel isn't the right word, but I think you know what I mean) & also provide a break to those who serve so that they don't burn out. And it's worked quite well.

And as posted by koko in the other thread & which I agree with:

By: BoardSource
Many boards find that setting term limits can be beneficial.

Advantages of a term limit policy:

•The board has the possibility of working with active community members who can devote only a few years to board service.
•Bringing diversity onto the board is easier.
•The board has a built-in balance of continuity and turnover.
•Passive, ineffective, or troublesome board members can be more easily rotated off.
•Board members experience a better rotation of committee assignments.
•A regular infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives is brought onto the board.
•The board gains a regular awareness and pays attention to the changing group dynamics.
•Limits present an opportunity for the board and the retiring board member to reassess a mutual willingness to continue working together with the possibility of enlarging the circle of committed supporters by keeping retired board members involved.

Disadvantages of term limits:
The downside to having terms limits can mean:
•the loss of expertise and organizational memory;
•the board spends more time dedicated to recruitment and orientation; and
•additional efforts are needed to keep the group cohesive.

Disadvantages of not having term limits
Boards without a term limit policy can experience:
•stagnation if no change occurs among the board members;
•perpetual concentration of power within a small group;
•intimidation of the occasional new member;
•tiredness, boredom, and loss of commitment by the board; and
•loss of connection to the constituency due to a change in demographics or environmental factors"

In addition I haven't seen one person post in either of the two threads that exist on this topic why taking a single year off every 2 terms is a bad thing & will harm FT.

Cheers.

I support this proposal ^^

^ ^ Yes, yes...a thousand times yes to term limits.

I voted against this already...I think our members are competent enough to vote for those they think do a good job and those folks should be allowed to serve as the members choose them.

That said, as of now, this year is likely my last year running for TalkBoard when my term expires, so this doesn't really impact me personally.

This ammendment also has my support and I hope it passes.

I think our members are competent enough to vote for those they think do a good job and those folks should be allowed to serve as the members choose them.



I agree completely! ^

Term limits yes!

Term limits for everyone, everywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhatnasx
I think our members are competent enough to vote for those they think do a good job and those folks should be allowed to serve as the members choose them.
I agree completely! ^

I voted against this already...I think our members are competent enough to vote for those they think do a good job and those folks should be allowed to serve as the members choose them.

Here's why that doesn't work: it prevents new people who might do a better job from getting a shot at the position. I've seen this happen first hand in another organization. A lack of term limits also eventually leads to stagnation and lack of new ideas. Having term limits forces the incumbents to help discover new people to learn the ropes so they can be good at the job if they're elected.

Term limits and the turnover they force are good things. Now, if we could just get D.C. to realize this...

A useful piece of information would be the annual board member turnover for the last 5? years. stagnation and old-boy network is bad but too much turnover has it own issues. What the right level is, is debatable. But in the absence of data, it is hard to have a constructive debate.

Here's why that doesn't work: it prevents new people who might do a better job from getting a shot at the position.

If this was a 1-person or a 3-person board of advisors, then I'd be more apt to push for term limits. But this is a 9-person board with 4 or 5 members being replaced every year. In my several years on FlyerTalk, I don't believe that there's been a single year where there wasn't some TalkBoard member turnover.

Sorry, I just don't believe that it prevents new people from joining the board. And as members elect the TalkBoard, the best way to represent them is by them choosing the people that best represent their interests.

If this was a 1-person or a 3-person board of advisors, then I'd be more apt to push for term limits. But this is a 9-person board with 4 or 5 members being replaced every year. In my several years on FlyerTalk, I don't believe that there's been a single year where there wasn't some TalkBoard member turnover.

Sorry, I just don't believe that it prevents new people from joining the board. And as members elect the TalkBoard, the best way to represent them is by them choosing the people that best represent their interests.

Do incumbents ever actually get beaten?

I know there is turnover when TB members quit, retire or get banned for life. I can't think of one example where an incumbent running for re-election has ever been defeated.

In any case, in my capacity of a TalkBoard member, I voted FOR this proposal in the private TB forum today for all of the well-made and meritorious arguments in favor of it. So with my decision taken I will leave it to others to research the actual incumbency metrics if they think it might sway an opinion of a TB member.

Do incumbents ever actually get beaten?

No idea - but that doesn't matter to me as the people that serve are the people that the members selected. ;)

No idea - but that doesn't matter to me as the people that serve are the people that the members selected. ;)

Ok. But it does go to the inherent advantages of incumbency. @:-)

Why such complicated language? Why not simply say that 'No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms?'

Why such complicated language? Why not simply say that 'No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms?'

To accommodate situations where a TB member quits mid-term and is replaced by the next-highest vote-getter in the previous election.

Here's how I put it in another thread that may be more clear:

- In most instances makes someone who has served two consecutive terms (4 years) on the TB take at least a year off before running again.

- In the instance of a replacement TB member, allows him or her to be elected 2 times after the appointment if he or she is appointed after the first year of the term of the person he or she is replacing. If he or she serves over one year of the term of the person he or she is replacing, he or she may only run one more time after serving out the over-one-year term before taking at least a year off.

I think this achieves those goals in a simple, straightforward way.

No idea - but that doesn't matter to me as the people that serve are the people that the members selected. ;)

Is this accurate or only partially accurate? It states a fact but when stepping back a few more paces to grasp the larger picture we see that membership votes for those they want in office, of those names on the ballot.

While it is true others could be nominated, it is not as simple as saying it can be done.

Look at voter turnout, look at the people running. Those two things are perhaps best described as woefully low and very limited in choice, respectively. I know several of the people that ran and that were elected. Some for more than a decade. That aside, there is an absolute lack of positive encouragement to get general membership to stand for the positions. If the TalkBoard positions were as widely advertised as the various “Reporter seeking such and such type of traveler” stickies, I believe we would have a much broader base of voters and a more differentiated list of candidates. Which is in my opinion a good goal for a board of this size.

I would support this motion because it is my belief that fresh blood (or more specifically an artificial replacement of previous position holders) is going to lead to FT needing to be more proactive in engaging membership for the roles being vacated. This would be an altogether good thing. Imagine representation by variety of interested parties over time and the diverse conversations and positions that would be represented. Heck it might even resemble what the American government was designed to be way back when.

Mike

If the TalkBoard positions were as widely advertised as the various “Reporter seeking such and such type of traveler” stickies, I believe we would have a much broader base of voters and a more differentiated list of candidates. Which is in my opinion a good goal for a board of this size.

While I don't disagree in theory with what you posted in this paragraph and while I give ^^ to this proposal that's on the voting floor right now, I believe it was a sticky announcement that there was a call for candidates and I'm pretty sure it was also included in the TalkMail, IIRC. I'm not sure what else could conceivably be done to try and garner more candidates without going over the "annoyance" line.

I think that all in all it's a fine idea. I don't love the idea of someone being on TB for years on end but I also wonder how often that happens.

But I also think we the voters should be allowed to vote for the people we think will represent us the best.

I guess in the end I'm happy with either outcome.

I have said that I trust the voters... so hope this does not pass.

But again, this is not true term limits. If you are going to do it, no more than two full terms... that is all you need to say. No, take a year off... and then get voted back on the island.

Also, does this apply to current members?

I support this proposal ^^Yup ^

My reasons for support of term limits:

I belong to some professional associations that have a term limit of X amount of terms followed by Y time off before being able to run again at Z time. It's designed to have talented people who are familiar w/ the org serve & use their wisdom to better the organization, but not end up w/ 'career' board members or 'cartels' (cartel isn't the right word, but I think you know what I mean) & also provide a break to those who serve so that they don't burn out. And it's worked quite well.

And as posted by koko in the other thread & which I agree with:

By: BoardSource
Many boards find that setting term limits can be beneficial.

Advantages of a term limit policy:

•The board has the possibility of working with active community members who can devote only a few years to board service.
•Bringing diversity onto the board is easier.
•The board has a built-in balance of continuity and turnover.
•Passive, ineffective, or troublesome board members can be more easily rotated off.
•Board members experience a better rotation of committee assignments.
•A regular infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives is brought onto the board.
•The board gains a regular awareness and pays attention to the changing group dynamics.
•Limits present an opportunity for the board and the retiring board member to reassess a mutual willingness to continue working together with the possibility of enlarging the circle of committed supporters by keeping retired board members involved.

Disadvantages of term limits:
The downside to having terms limits can mean:
•the loss of expertise and organizational memory;
•the board spends more time dedicated to recruitment and orientation; and
•additional efforts are needed to keep the group cohesive.

Disadvantages of not having term limits
Boards without a term limit policy can experience:
•stagnation if no change occurs among the board members;
•perpetual concentration of power within a small group;
•intimidation of the occasional new member;
•tiredness, boredom, and loss of commitment by the board; and
•loss of connection to the constituency due to a change in demographics or environmental factors"

In addition I haven't seen one person post in either of the two threads that exist on this topic why taking a single year off every 2 terms is a bad thing & will harm FT.

Cheers.Yup (and kudos for the thorough analysis [which (imho) others should read before passing judgement]

Here's why that doesn't work: it prevents new people who might do a better job from getting a shot at the position. I've seen this happen first hand in another organization. A lack of term limits also eventually leads to stagnation and lack of new ideas. Having term limits forces the incumbents to help discover new people to learn the ropes so they can be good at the job if they're elected.

Term limits and the turnover they force are good things. Now, if we could just get D.C. to realize this...Yup to the first part but as to D.C. they never eat their young ;)

Do incumbents ever actually get beaten?

I know there is turnover when TB members quit, retire or get banned for life. I can't think of one example where an incumbent running for re-election has ever been defeated.

In any case, in my capacity of a TalkBoard member, I voted FOR this proposal in the private TB forum today for all of the well-made and meritorious arguments in favor of it. So with my decision taken I will leave it to others to research the actual incumbency metrics if they think it might sway an opinion of a TB member.Bolding mine: Yes, when they are termed out ;)

Why such complicated language? Why not simply say that 'No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms?'I agree with the simplicity but you'd have to take into account as noted by kokonutz, you have to take into account a TB member leaving office in mid term tho to add to your proposal, "No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms and if they choose to run for an additional term, they must sit out one full term before running again"

I too, hope TB will support this change. It's more an matter of removing people who think 'everything is wonderful in FT and we don't need any change' who tend to be the longest serving members of TB.

I think that all in all it's a fine idea. I don't love the idea of someone being on TB for years on end but I also wonder how often that happens.

If this was a 1-person or a 3-person board of advisors, then I'd be more apt to push for term limits. But this is a 9-person board with 4 or 5 members being replaced every year. In my several years on FlyerTalk, I don't believe that there's been a single year where there wasn't some TalkBoard member turnover.

Our current TalkBoard president was first appointed and has since been continually on TB for how many terms?

I support this proposal ^^

+ 1 ^^

Do incumbents ever actually get beaten?

I did, in November 2010. I fell 2 spots short of the cut. Members from quiet corners of FT have a hard time getting votes for TalkBoard.

Just 2 months later, the resignation of two members put me back on the TalkBoard to fill the last 10 months of a term. At that point I knew I had only 10 months on TalkBoard before probably losing another re-election bid.

Those 10 months were more productive than my prior 2-year term. Without the deadline, if I had been re-elected in November 2010, things would have gone differently. I know myself well enough to realize that I would have been slower at everything. Also, I would probably not have pressed the Abstain revision in the absence of a solid count of support. I learned from that experience that calling a vote increases the chance that people will carefully re-think the issue.

As I said in the other thread, we all have deadlines at work. That's because deadlines make us all more effective. A 4-year deadline is better than no deadline at all. The current proposal could cost us 20% of the service time of the best TB members. My experience this year tells me that 4 years with the term limit deadline will be more effective than 5 years without any deadline.

As it happened, I won my re-election bid last month. Maybe it was the low turnout. ;) Whatever the reason, I was surprised. I then term-limited myself out of the VP slot, and I was thrilled that the person I thought deserved the position was approved unanimously.

Also, does this apply to current members?

Of course. What do you think we are, sneaky politicians or something? :p

We tried to anticipate and prevent any tactics to game the term limits. FTers are experts at finding and exploiting loopholes.

If approved, this proposal will disqualify me from running again in 2013 because my break in service was only 2 months. That's OK, because I work very well under a deadline. @:-)

No idea - but that doesn't matter to me as the people that serve are the people that the members selected. ;)

How many members are there and how many voted in the last election? (yes, I meant it as a rhetorical question.)

I completely support term limits. I think it's a good idea and we have to reach out to develop new talent when needed, find new people that share our community vision and are passionate about it.

Don't worry, for some of you it won't be an end to your career, just a brief pause in between terms. :D

Thanks to all the current board members that are supporting this.

-David

Are there term limits for moderators?

Yes for term limits when there are term limits for moderators. Until then, NO.

Are there term limits for moderators?

Yes for term limits when there are term limits for moderators. Until then, NO.

I agree that there should be term limits for moderators too, but why would you be against this until that happens?

We have to start somewhere...

Here is (most of) what I posted in the private TB forum this morning on the topic:


Sharon has posted the BoardSource pros and cons.

For a more narrative rather than bulleted analysis, have a look here: http://managementhelp.org/blogs/boar...board-members/

The point: "Now, simply put: When the Board Members of a Non-Profit Organization do not have specific term limits, and some-or-all of the same people continue to serve without limit, the Board, over time, is likely to become less representative of the community. There are three common reasons this happens:

(1) Boards get used to doing things their way;

(2) Board members only think important those things that they think are important; and,

(3) Their focus is on providing service to those to whom they provide service.

That was not intended to be cryptic. It is merely a way of saying that a board without term limits has no requirement, no major incentive, to re-examine, change or broaden their mission and/or their activities and services."



The conclusion: "Term limits are an essential ingredient in maintaining a Board’s vitality. Any Board that insists that term-limits are not necessary for them, for whatever reason, is acting on the basis of its own needs, and not out of consideration for the community they are supposed to be serving."

In the comments below the article is an idea for a 'board alumni' group. I actually think that's a really cool idea and maybe something we ought to think about on at least an informal basis.

I agree that there should be term limits for moderators too, but why would you be against this until that happens?

We have to start somewhere...

Unfortunately, the train is gaining momentum and the lid is being unscrewed on talkboard. Blinders on...

Of the two groups that govern/control Flyertalk members, who are members, only one group has a structure for change, Talkboard. I am not aware of a structure to change moderators. Thus my objection in weakening Talkboard at this time. The place to begin is defining the checks and balances of the power between the two groups and the long term impact. [ domination of one group, verses dominion of both.] Term limits for both groups makes domination, or power building, much more unlikely in my opinion.

I would be curious to hear from Talkboard members on whether they believe allowing members to be relected after one year off is really going to change the dial?

People will come off at the same time... then possibly run again at the same time.

If you truly want to cultivate new blood, why not go all the way and do that?

As the global announcement pointing members to this proposal has been live for two days, what are our TB members thoughts on the response volume thus far? Surely if there is any acknowledgment of a problem with the current policy and a pressing demand for a fix, this thread would be abuzz with activity.

As the global announcement pointing members to this proposal has been live for two days, what are our TB members thoughts on the response volume thus far? Surely if there is any acknowledgment of a problem with the current policy and a pressing demand for a fix, this thread would be abuzz with activity.

Since there is no overwhelming hue and cry in one direction or the other, I can rationalize poster participation in this thread either way:

as a sign of the apathy that term-limits (among other things) are trying to fix, which makes it really important to get this done
or
as an indication that most posters have no strong feelings on the matter so we should leave status quo in place.

Iow, where you stand depends on where you sit.

Although I favor the idea of encouraging turnover, I personally am not in favor of term limits (at least for a volunteer organization such as this). This is in part because I place a high value on experience and institutional memory, and in part because it can prevent me from voting for the person who I feel is best qualified.

Instead of excluding certain people based on the amount of time they served, what about a rule that required including one or more members who had never served? If I am remembering correctly, there are 4 or 5 members elected each year for 2-year terms. You could reserve one of those slots each year for someone who has never previously served on TalkBoard. So assuming the number open seats is 5 for the moment, the first four seats would go to the 4 individuals with the highest vote totals period (regardless of prior experience or lack thereof). The fifth seat would go to the individual receiving the most votes who has never previously served on TalkBoard This guarantees that at least one "rookie" joins the board each year (and maybe more, as a rookie might also be one of the top 4 vote getters). It also effectively guarantees that at least one person from the current TalkBoard will wind up rotating out. But voters, rather than term limits, will determine who that is.

For a more narrative rather than bulleted analysis, have a look here: http://managementhelp.org/blogs/boar...board-members/

The point: "Now, simply put: When the Board Members of a Non-Profit Organization do not have specific term limits, and some-or-all of the same people continue to serve without limit, the Board, over time, is likely to become less representative of the community. There are three common reasons this happens:

(1) Boards get used to doing things their way;

(2) Board members only think important those things that they think are important; and,

(3) Their focus is on providing service to those to whom they provide service.

That was not intended to be cryptic. It is merely a way of saying that a board without term limits has no requirement, no major incentive, to re-examine, change or broaden their mission and/or their activities and services."

The conclusion: "Term limits are an essential ingredient in maintaining a Board’s vitality. Any Board that insists that term-limits are not necessary for them, for whatever reason, is acting on the basis of its own needs, and not out of consideration for the community they are supposed to be serving."


Bolding & underlining mine.

I have also yet to see an argument that taking a single year off after 2 terms is bad for FT.

I've served on a # of BOD of professional assns. They've always had term limits in place similar to what we're recommending here, and it worked quite well.

I haven't decided if I'll run again when my term is up next year, but if I do & am re-elected, I would voluntarily self-term limit myself after that term (if this doesn't pass). I firmly believe that term limits are beneficial to an organization (and a IBB).

Re: serving & never serving again. As mentioned by someone else, that's a non-starter for some of the TB members so this was the compromise. It's a compromise that I still think will benefit FT.

Re: mod limits. This thread is not about moderators, but about TB term limits. Let's keep the focus on the actual motion. Thank you.

Re: why not more posts. I've never actually tracked # of posts to # of days on the public announcement on any of the many things we voted on this year. Shrug.

Re: other suggestions re: seating of TB members. Appreciate the input & something to think about & possibly consider in the future (someone PM'd me with a separate suggestion), but this thread is for the motion mentioned in post #1.

Cheers.

I would be curious to hear from Talkboard members on whether they believe allowing members to be relected after one year off is really going to change the dial?

People will come off at the same time... then possibly run again at the same time.

If you truly want to cultivate new blood, why not go all the way and do that?


I don't believe that it will change much...but that said, I also don't support this motion.

***

As to other comments from my last post in this thread...

There is always a call for candidates and there is alway a something noted in TalkMail.

Are there better ways of communicating to FTers about this? Maybe...but at the same time, every year, there is a wide variety of members running for TalkBoard - some have been around for years & others are relative newbies with less than 6 months on the board & less than maybe 100 posts...so the word does get out.

In regards to viable candidates - anyone who wants to is allowed to run, there's very few regulation as to who can run as a TB member & all are given equal platforms and access to the candidate campaign question forum. Some are just more engaged than others.

Here is (most of) what I posted in the private TB forum this morning on the topic:


Sharon has posted the BoardSource pros and cons.

For a more narrative rather than bulleted analysis, have a look here: http://managementhelp.org/blogs/boar...board-members/

The point: "Now, simply put: When the Board Members of a Non-Profit Organization do not have specific term limits, and some-or-all of the same people continue to serve without limit, the Board, over time, is likely to become less representative of the community. There are three common reasons this happens:

(1) Boards get used to doing things their way;

(2) Board members only think important those things that they think are important; and,

(3) Their focus is on providing service to those to whom they provide service.

That was not intended to be cryptic. It is merely a way of saying that a board without term limits has no requirement, no major incentive, to re-examine, change or broaden their mission and/or their activities and services."



The conclusion: "Term limits are an essential ingredient in maintaining a Board’s vitality. Any Board that insists that term-limits are not necessary for them, for whatever reason, is acting on the basis of its own needs, and not out of consideration for the community they are supposed to be serving."

In the comments below the article is an idea for a 'board alumni' group. I actually think that's a really cool idea and maybe something we ought to think about on at least an informal basis.
I'm witnessing this in a volunteer organization first-hand. I'm one of the officers in my local club, and was close to resigning, due in part because of a situation with another officer, who has been a club member and officer for at least 20 years.

I met with the president of the club last evening, and mentioned to her that one of the big problems that many of the other officers have, and what has the potential to lead the club into some financial issues, stems from the treasurer. I also mentioned that I think the club needs to impose term limits to address some of the issues.

He's been treasurer for the past 5 years, and was an officer with the club for many years before that, including other stints as treasurer. He's a great guy, and is very knowledgeable about the club, how situations have been handled previously, etc. However, one of the big problems is that he is not very receptive to new ideas, ways to improve, or ways to change the club to better serve its members.

We're looking at having to either raise dues or cut our newsletter, which is pretty unique to our club. Our dues are rather high already, and this officer's wife takes care of our newsletter each month.

When we've discussed the subject of the newsletter, as it is our largest expense each month, we're usually told that the club has always had a great newsletter, it sets us apart from other clubs, and that the club is just fine without taking any action. To him, the newsletter is important to the club, while others place importance on not increasing dues.

As a fairly new member, I'm feeling much frustration, as are the other new members, because our ideas are minimized, if listened to at all, and as such, it serves to chase away new blood, and keep those who have "always done it this way," doing it that way, when there are other options out there that might be better.

Vote: Amend TalkBoard Guidelines - Term Limits

Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback in either this thread or the other discussion thread. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1290400-talkboard-considering-term-limits-seeking-your-input.html

Cheers.

Bolding & underlining mine.

Re: other suggestions re: seating of TB members. Appreciate the input & something to think about & possibly consider in the future (someone PM'd me with a separate suggestion), but this thread is for the motion mentioned in post #1.

Cheers.


Sorry, it is a bit confusing to figure out where to post, in light of the two threads going and the initial message above.

As the global announcement pointing members to this proposal has been live for two days, what are our TB members thoughts on the response volume thus far? Surely if there is any acknowledgment of a problem with the current policy and a pressing demand for a fix, this thread would be abuzz with activity.

I think noone has said pressing demand. But if you are looking for opinions, heres mine. Term limits@:-)

When we repeatedly see qualified candidates, theres no recruitment issue, and reason not to have limits in that aspect.

I would be curious to hear from Talkboard members on whether they believe allowing members to be relected after one year off is really going to change the dial?

People will come off at the same time... then possibly run again at the same time.

If you truly want to cultivate new blood, why not go all the way and do that?

Here's why:

As I said in the other thread, we all have deadlines at work. That's because deadlines make us all more effective. A 4-year deadline is better than no deadline at all. The current proposal could cost us 20% of the service time of the best TB members. My experience this year tells me that 4 years with the term limit deadline will be more effective than 5 years without any deadline.

I would be curious to hear from Talkboard members on whether they believe allowing members to be relected after one year off is really going to change the dial?

People will come off at the same time... then possibly run again at the same time.

If you truly want to cultivate new blood, why not go all the way and do that?Personally, I'd like to see it as one term (2 years) as opposed to one year

What actually do TalkBoard members do?
If I understand correctly, this is a private forum. This is not a governments where excessive length of time on the board could lead to corruption, abuse of power etc.
I think we need to understand better this forum's structure to make intelligent comments on that subject matter.

What actually do TalkBoard members do?
If I understand correctly, this is a private forum. This is not a governments where excessive length of time on the board could lead to corruption, abuse of power etc.
I think we need to understand better this forum's structure to make intelligent comments on that subject matter.

What is the TalkBoard and how are new forums and other suggestions considered? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/918161-what-talkboard-how-new-forums-other-suggestions-considered.html)

I think we need to understand better this forum's structure to make intelligent comments on that subject matter.

We?

I voted against this already...I think our members are competent enough to vote for those they think do a good job and those folks should be allowed to serve as the members choose them.

I agree very strongly with this, I am on several board of directors and keeping good people is vital to long term success. New people may have good ideas but let them prove it in election against experienced people who are have had good ideas and a track record. A new person can do just as much harm as good. Elect the best people not just new people.^

Please keep this focused on term limits for the TalkBoard. If you have any ideas about term limits for moderators, a private message to the Community Director is the way to address it.

Also for housekeeping reasons, a preliminary discussion on the subject was closed. However interested parties should review this thread for more background:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1290400-talkboard-considering-term-limits-seeking-your-input.html

I think term limits are a wonderful idea and I think this was a timely proposal.

I only served one term on TB by my own choice. I ran with that in mind (although it was not in my platform) and at the end of my two years felt it was time to let a fresh board member come on to take my place. While there has always been some turnover every year, there are also many TB members past and present who have served for many years, perhaps reelected as the best candidates, but perhaps reelected on their "experience" or visibility from already being on TB.

I'm on the fence as I don't think the proposal to introduce term limits goes far enough..

Beef up the proposal (no one serving past two terms), or leave it alone imho..

Bravo.... totally agree!

I'm on the fence as I don't think the proposal to introduce term limits goes far enough..

Beef up the proposal (no one serving past two terms), or leave it alone imho..

I'm in favor of term limits. When you have a community as large as this one to have a handful of people entrenched as long-term TB members is not a good idea.

I find it instructive that, so far, only 1 poster who is not a Talkboard member, former member, or Moderator is in unqualified opposition to term limits. The opposition to term limits is otherwise from "The Establishment".

I find it instructive that, so far, only 1 poster who is not a Talkboard member, former member, or Moderator is in unqualified opposition to term limits. The opposition to term limits is otherwise from "The Establishment".
Interesting indeed!

I support this. Good idea.

I find it instructive that, so far, only 1 poster who is not a Talkboard member, former member, or Moderator is in unqualified opposition to term limits. The opposition to term limits is otherwise from "The Establishment".

Keep in mind that there are current TalkBoard members and former Talkboard member who *are* in favor of this, for various reasons. Me included. If it was possible, I'd make the interval between terms longer. I'll take what I can get, if anything.

Keep in mind that there are current TalkBoard members and former Talkboard member who *are* in favor of this, for various reasons. Me included. If it was possible, I'd make the interval between terms longer. I'll take what I can get, if anything.

I'd like to think that some of the new TalkBoard members were elected in part due to the FT members' desire for changes like this.

I find it instructive that, so far, only 1 poster who is not a Talkboard member, former member, or Moderator is in unqualified opposition to term limits. The opposition to term limits is otherwise from "The Establishment".

I'm also on a number of Boards.. and as a commercial property owner we deal with these type of issues on a regular basis, as a couple of our properties are within condo associations..

It would be disastrous imo if for profit corporations require fresh blood, even every 4 years.. None of my corporations we own (14 plus) has this written into any of the by-laws.. only the non-profits (i.e. condos and owner associations) I've encountered required term limits..

I think since this is a not for profit volunteer board, there is an argument for term limits.. but if this was a for profit board (i.e. I believe Internet Solutions own FT), then I would advise strongly against it term limits for its corporate board.. If for some reason, the TalkBoard is the actual Board on Internet Solutions handling advertising and profitability of this forum (which won't happen imo), then I would strongly advise against term limits.

Great idea.

As an auditor I saw countless Boards where the membership never changed. They were always the least responsive to any suggestion of change because they liked how they did it (clearly, as if they didn't they would/could have changed it 20 years ago). OTOH, boards with turnover were much more open to suggestions; and even when they decided to stick with the old ways, at least they had the conversations.

If the established members of ANY board are so convinced that everything is perfect and that such perfection is clear to anyone who researches it, then they have no reason not to support term limits. Worst case, some new members get in, gasp in awe at the perfection after reviewing the issues and change nothing. And a year later the old members can run again to continue admiring the perfection.

Quite frankly, given that all except one of the non-TB/Mod affiliated members has posted in support of this motion, I'd suggest to IB that if TB won't support this motion, perhaps it should be put to a referendum during the next TB vote.

I support the idea of term limits.

Here's why that doesn't work: it prevents new people who might do a better job from getting a shot at the position. I've seen this happen first hand in another organization. A lack of term limits also eventually leads to stagnation and lack of new ideas. Having term limits forces the incumbents to help discover new people to learn the ropes so they can be good at the job if they're elected.

Term limits and the turnover they force are good things. Now, if we could just get D.C. to realize this...

Yes ^^^

Yes on term limits!

You might want to read this thread which the Talk Board president posted 7 years ago:
Do Not Post Opinions of Moderation, Moderators or Their Actions Here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/366553-do-not-post-opinions-moderation-moderators-their-actions-here.html)

You might want to read this thread which the Talk Board president posted 7 years ago:
Do Not Post Opinions of Moderation, Moderators or Their Actions Here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/366553-do-not-post-opinions-moderation-moderators-their-actions-here.html)

Or, more constructively, this one:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1288308-should-there-forum-threads-insert-your-idea-moderation-feedback.html

I am in favor of term limits.

Very democratic, so I vote yes.

I suspect the US law that I believe allows the President to serve only 2 terms is there for a reason?

The "let the voters decide" argument did not seem to appeal much to the founding fathers of the USA. :D

Maybe they foresaw folks like Nixon on the horizon? :)

Term limits are good.

I am 100% in support of term limits - they are the reason I only served two terms. They make sense, and they prevent moderators from serving over and over again.

I suspect the US law that I believe allows the President to serve only 2 terms is there for a reason?

The "let the voters decide" argument did not seem to appeal much to the founding fathers of the USA. :D

Maybe they foresaw folks like Nixon on the horizon? :)

Term limits are good.

The 22nd Amendment to the US constitution wasn't ratified until 1951. Before that, Presidents followed George Washington's precedent of voluntarily retiring after 2 terms.

But that's a poor analogy, imho. So are corporate boards.

The TB is a volunteer 'organization' whose job is to come up with, examine and/or make recommendations on ideas to make FT a better place. There is no special skill set required. Any poster who cares about FT can do it. Term limits are simply a best practice in situations like this where you want to allow as many volunteers as possible to be engaged.

The TB is a volunteer 'organization' whose job is to come up with, examine and/or make recommendations on ideas to make FT a better place. There is no special skill set required. Any poster who cares about FT can do it. Term limits are simply a best practice for term limits in situations like this where you want to allow as many volunteers as possible to be engaged.

Actually, it's kind of funny that one has to discuss term limits. If everyone were to follow the best practice you mention (like for instance ScottC, whose post I applaud) instead of clinging to their seat like an African dictator, one would not even need to discuss term limits.

In my opinion, the burden should be on those who think they are so indispensable that they have to be on TalkBoard for more than 4 consecutive years to explain why that would be necessary. If you haven't been able to bring your ideas (if any) to fruition within 4 (or more!) years, why do you have to block the seat for someone else who could bring some fresh ideas and input?

The only possible explanation (other than personal vanity) I see right now is that a person who does that wants to indeed prevent fresh ideas and input...maybe even in a pigheaded way?

But I am happy to be convinced otherwise by those self-interested ones who oppose term limits.

A useful piece of information would be the annual board member turnover for the last 5? years.

Does anyone on the current TB have this information?

But in the absence of data, it is hard to have a constructive debate.

+1. ^^

I have served on a number of Boards on non-profit organisations, both locally, nationally and internationally on both sides of the Atlantic. I have seen the problems of stagnation on much larger sized boards than TB.

Term limits are a good idea for the TalkBoard so I would support this change. 4 years on then a year off before one is eligible to run again.

I am not sure that the arguments put forward in favour of term limits apply equally to moderators though.

Does anyone on the current TB have this information?

I would be more than happy to compile a list of the service of the current TalkBoard. I'll try to do so today.

I believe only Spiff & I have been on the board on the past 5 years - there has been turnover on all other positions.

I'm serving my 3rd 2-year term. At this time, regardless of whether this motion passes or not (and I've voted against it), I do not plan on running for TalkBoard again.

If this motion passes, neither nsx, Spiff, or jackal will be eligible to run when their terms are up as well.

Yes to term limits. What is the average age of the talkboard members?

Yes to term limits. What is the average age of the talkboard members?^ and I'm not proud ;), I'm 53 :)

32...been on TB since I was 27...on FT since I was 23 :)

32...been on TB since I was 27...on FT since I was 23 :)
And in my mind, you will ALWAYS be the free iPod guy :D ;)

Yes to term limits. What is the average age of the talkboard members?

I'm curious, why do you think this is relevant?

I believe only Spiff & I have been on the board on the past 5 years - there has been turnover on all other positions.

I'm serving my 3rd 2-year term. At this time, regardless of whether this motion passes or not (and I've voted against it), I do not plan on running for TalkBoard again.

If this motion passes, neither nsx, Spiff, or jackal will be eligible to run when their terms are up as well.

I had to go a long way back to answer the question I had in my mind when all this started up. Spiff has been a member since early 2002. He was appointed to the TB by Randy as has been a member ever since.

I had to go a long way back to answer the question I had in my mind when all this started up. Spiff has been a member since early 2002.

Thanks for the info.

Which important initiatives has he championed during his time on TalkBoard?

Thanks for the info.

Which important initiatives has he championed during his time on TalkBoard?

I'd rather not go down that path. This isn't an election campaign.

I'd rather not go down that path. This isn't an election campaign.

^

And in my mind, you will ALWAYS be the free iPod guy :D ;)

Believe it or not, but I still have mine. I took it apart about a year ago & put in a 32GB flash drive & a new battery. Never needed upgrade the "fancy" new ones - 32GB & a 5+ hour battery works for my needs! :D

I'd rather not go down that path. This isn't an election campaign.

Fair enough. Will revisit this question when the time comes, if necessary ;).

It is a bit disturbing to read so many of you seem to think that having more turnover on TB will make TB more amenable to change. How do you know that - the members may continue to elect TB representatives who prefer the status quo?

Is this being done because you think it will be good for FT, or because there are certain individuals on TB who you want to get off, but keep being elected by the members?

If it's the latter, well frankly, I'd be very disappointed that you were trying to change the rules because you don't approve of whom the members elect. You don't get to make that choice - they do.

I think this does have potential to be a positive thing, but I fear it is being done for underhand, manipulative reasons, where you are trying to circumvent who the members have been chosing to represent them and stack TB to be more like what you would like to see, rather than what the members would like to see.

It seems some would like to see TB set itself up in opposition to the management of FT - there would be only one outcome to that, and that would not be good for TB or for the members you supposedly represent.

It is a bit disturbing to read so many of you seem to think that having more turnover on TB will make TB more amenable to change. How do you know that - the members may continue to elect TB representatives who prefer the status quo?

Is this being done because you think it will be good for FT, or because there are certain individuals on TB who you want to get off, but keep being elected by the members?

If it's the latter, well frankly, I'd be very disappointed that you were trying to change the rules because you don't approve of whom the members elect. You don't get to make that choice - they do.

I think this does have potential to be a positive thing, but I fear it is being down for underhand, manipulative reasons, where you are trying to circumvent who the members have been chosing to represent them and stack TB to be more like what you would like to see, rather than what the members would like to see.

It seems some would like to see TB set itself up in opposition to the management of FT - there would be only one outcome to that, and that would not be good for TB or for the members you supposedly represent.

Well said, Jenbel. ^

Thank you Jenbel for expressing exactly my thoughts. Might I add, where is there any evidence of cronyism setting in on TB? Each year, the membership has elected in fresh representatives as well as re-elected experienced TB members. Does anyone seriously believe this mix is unhealthy?

Frankly, I am beginning to tune out of TB Topics. I have a great deal of passion for FT and want to see our community go from strength to strength but proposing legislation for the sake of legislation is a real turn off for me.

Believe it or not, but I still have mine. I took it apart about a year ago & put in a 32GB flash drive & a new battery. Never needed upgrade the "fancy" new ones - 32GB & a 5+ hour battery works for my needs! :D
Wow! I didn't even think it would open. Kudos to you!

It is a bit disturbing to read so many of you seem to think that having more turnover on TB will make TB more amenable to change. How do you know that - the members may continue to elect TB representatives who prefer the status quo?

Is this being done because you think it will be good for FT, or because there are certain individuals on TB who you want to get off, but keep being elected by the members?

If it's the latter, well frankly, I'd be very disappointed that you were trying to change the rules because you don't approve of whom the members elect. You don't get to make that choice - they do.

I think this does have potential to be a positive thing, but I fear it is being done for underhand, manipulative reasons, where you are trying to circumvent who the members have been chosing to represent them and stack TB to be more like what you would like to see, rather than what the members would like to see.

It seems some would like to see TB set itself up in opposition to the management of FT - there would be only one outcome to that, and that would not be good for TB or for the members you supposedly represent.

I think this time we are seeing the black helicopters coming out again -- but by people much different than the usual suspects.

There may be people that are examples that drive home the point the need for such a measure, but this isn't personal.

The United States didn't see a need for the 22nd amendment until FDR decided to be president-for-life. Yes, he won the elections. Yes, the people wanted him to serve. But it was decided that this wasn't good for the country and the 22nd amendment was passed by the very people elected to represent the same people who elected FDR.

This is no different, IMO. And sorry for the US-centric reasoning, Jenbel, but it's the best I can come up with on a Monday morning.

You don't get to make that choice - they do.

That argument can be made against any term limits. I think Chavez made that argument in Venezuela, by the way.

It seems some would like to see TB set itself up in opposition to the management of FT - there would be only one outcome to that, and that would not be good for TB or for the members you supposedly represent.

Term limits would affect everyone equally. They have nothing to do with opposition to the management of FT.

It is a bit disturbing to read so many of you seem to think that having more turnover on TB will make TB more amenable to change. How do you know that - the members may continue to elect TB representatives who prefer the status quo?

Is this being done because you think it will be good for FT, or because there are certain individuals on TB who you want to get off, but keep being elected by the members?

If it's the latter, well frankly, I'd be very disappointed that you were trying to change the rules because you don't approve of whom the members elect. You don't get to make that choice - they do.

I think this does have potential to be a positive thing, but I fear it is being done for underhand, manipulative reasons, where you are trying to circumvent who the members have been chosing to represent them and stack TB to be more like what you would like to see, rather than what the members would like to see.

It seems some would like to see TB set itself up in opposition to the management of FT - there would be only one outcome to that, and that would not be good for TB or for the members you supposedly represent.
I support term limits in part because I think that there are far more people willing to volunteer to help FT than what we currently see. I see this as a way to help engage those willing to volunteer, and perhaps a way to prod more people into volunteering as well.

When the same people serve for long periods of time, my experiences have been that it discourages new people from wanting to volunteer. They feel their opinions and ideas will be discouraged or ignored, and at that point, why bother?

I've seen this first-hand in other organizations, and it has kept people from participating who might otherwise have great ideas on how to improve the organization.

It is a bit disturbing to read so many of you seem to think that having more turnover on TB will make TB more amenable to change. How do you know that - the members may continue to elect TB representatives who prefer the status quo?

Is this being done because you think it will be good for FT, or because there are certain individuals on TB who you want to get off, but keep being elected by the members?

If it's the latter, well frankly, I'd be very disappointed that you were trying to change the rules because you don't approve of whom the members elect. You don't get to make that choice - they do.

I think this does have potential to be a positive thing, but I fear it is being done for underhand, manipulative reasons, where you are trying to circumvent who the members have been chosing to represent them and stack TB to be more like what you would like to see, rather than what the members would like to see.

It seems some would like to see TB set itself up in opposition to the management of FT - there would be only one outcome to that, and that would not be good for TB or for the members you supposedly represent.

Well said, Jenbel. ^

Thank you Jenbel for expressing exactly my thoughts. Might I add, where is there any evidence of cronyism setting in on TB? Each year, the membership has elected in fresh representatives as well as re-elected experienced TB members. Does anyone seriously believe this mix is unhealthy?

Frankly, I am beginning to tune out of TB Topics. I have a great deal of passion for FT and want to see our community go from strength to strength but proposing legislation for the sake of legislation is a real turn off for me.

The powers-that-be are circling the wagons.

If you are unwilling/unable to see any problems with FT, or deal with the rogue moderators and the problem of the "disappeared", it is time to step back from management and time to recognize the wisdom of term limits.


The United States didn't see a need for the 22nd amendment until FDR decided to be president-for-life. Yes, he won the elections. Yes, the people wanted him to serve. But it was decided that this wasn't good for the country and the 22nd amendment was passed by the very people elected to represent the same people who elected FDR.

^

That argument can be made against any term limits. I think Chavez made that argument in Venezuela, by the way.

Term limits would affect everyone equally. They have nothing to do with opposition to the management of FT.

^

I am not so sure about that...

We do not seem to have a lack of candidates each year.... never struggling to get people to run.

I honestly do believe that most people are very happy with their experience and are not that upset about many things.... thus why we have such a small core of people that even take part in this forum.

People cannot say they do not know about the Talkboard unless they truly have their head in the ground... there are Stickys, Announcements, Talkmail and voter avatars. People know, but either do not care... or do not believe there is anything to "worry" about.

I am not a fan of term limits, I do trust that people vote for who they want to represent them... be it moderators or non-moderators or ambassadors. Is it a popularity contest, possibly for many. Heck, several of the people running chose to not even participate in the "debates" and then have members who - once elected - do not participate in Talkboard.

People say Flyertalk needs to change... but nothing get recommended except give us control over the moderators. Is that really the big issue of the day? Do most members even care about that? I am guessing that less than 1% of the membership ever has "disciplinary" contact with a moderator. But it has been interesting to watch who has been the most vocal about wanting control over the moderators.

I wish the Talkboard would take on issues such as: software platform; wikiposts; site design; forum formatting. I think the group could have such an impact on studying/recommending direction in those areas. I believe that IB and Carol would be open to hearing their thoughts. They have now been in place for about a month... and nothing yet has really gone on the table that is new.

I support term limits in part because I think that there are far more people willing to volunteer to help FT than what we currently see. I see this as a way to help engage those willing to volunteer, and perhaps a way to prod more people into volunteering as well.

When the same people serve for long periods of time, my experiences have been that it discourages new people from wanting to volunteer. They feel their opinions and ideas will be discouraged or ignored, and at that point, why bother?

I've seen this first-hand in other organizations, and it has kept people from participating who might otherwise have great ideas on how to improve the organization.

This is no different

Well, the stakes are a teeny bit different.

...FDR decided to be president-for-life.

Historical tendentiousness/jejuneness alert.

People say Flyertalk needs to change... but nothing get recommended except give us control over the moderators.

Are we surprised?

Is that really the big issue of the day?

Absolutely. Tom Paine would be proud.

I am not so sure about that...

We do not seem to have a lack of candidates each year.... never struggling to get people to run.

I honestly do believe that most people are very happy with their experience and are not that upset about many things.... thus why we have such a small core of people that even take part in this forum.

People cannot say they do not know about the Talkboard unless they truly have their head in the ground... there are Stickys, Announcements, Talkmail and voter avatars. People know, but either do not care... or do not believe there is anything to "worry" about.

I am not a fan of term limits, I do trust that people vote for who they want to represent them... be it moderators or non-moderators or ambassadors. Is it a popularity contest, possibly for many. Heck, several of the people running chose to not even participate in the "debates" and then have members who - once elected - do not participate in Talkboard.

People say Flyertalk needs to change... but nothing get recommended except give us control over the moderators. Is that really the big issue of the day? Do most members even care about that? I am guessing that less than 1% of the membership ever has "disciplinary" contact with a moderator. But it has been interesting to watch who has been the most vocal about wanting control over the moderators.

I wish the Talkboard would take on issues such as: software platform; wikiposts; site design; forum formatting. I think the group could have such an impact on studying/recommending direction in those areas. I believe that IB and Carol would be open to hearing their thoughts. They have now been in place for about a month... and nothing yet has really gone on the table that is new.
I think you might see more people running for TalkBoard and more people voting if there were term limits. I'd hope that more people would think they could make a difference.

As far as moderators, that's probably best for another thread, perhaps the one inquiring about if there should be a thread in each forum for discussion of moderation?

I have some constructive ideas for improving the management of FT on a day-to-day basis.

This is not one of them.

This is an idea to allow more and different people to be engaged in FlyerTalk.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people perceive some sort of 'anti-moderation' agenda to this proposal. It limits the amount of time populists like me can serve every bit as much as it limits the amount of time moderators can serve. Not because I am a populist or because someone else is a moderator. Because letting more people get involved is in the long-term best interests of FlyerTalk.

I think you might see more people running for TalkBoard and more people voting if there were term limits. I'd hope that more people would think they could make a difference.

As far as moderators, that's probably best for another thread, perhaps the one inquiring about if there should be a thread in each forum for discussion of moderation?

It is interesting that moderators and long-time TB members (not all of them, certainly) seem to be the ones who are most vehemently opposed to this proposal.

And yet, I don't see why it's such a big deal. I read a post yesterday where someone said we'd be depriving the membership of the ability to vote for their desired candidate. But the only term limit this would impose would be a one year break after four years of service. Surely nobody is that indispensable that serving only 4 of 5 years would be a detriment to all of FT and a disenfranchisement of the voters.

Also, if this is such a terrible thing, I wonder why the hundreds of people who voted for the candidate(s) who would be affected haven't come into the thread and complained about the proposal.

I have some constructive ideas for improving the management of FT on a day-to-day basis.

This is not one of them.

This is an idea to allow more and different people to be engaged in FlyerTalk.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people perceive some sort of 'anti-moderation' agenda to this proposal. It limits the amount of time populists like me can serve every bit as much as it limits the amount of time moderators can serve. Not because I am a populist or because someone else is a moderator. Because letting more people get involved is in the long-term best interests of FlyerTalk.

This.

I won election this year and one of the first things I am in favor of is making sure that I can't be elected for a third consecutive term. Well, bring out the black helicopters.

Those of us who vote for this are clearly putting FT ahead of ourselves -- we are limiting ourselves *just as much* as we are limiting others.

Except the proposal does not truly limit your participation... you just have to not run for one year... and then you can come back for another four years.... not really doing much to get new blood engaged in Talkboard. I am a firm believer that most people get elected to Talkboard because of being known (for good or bad reasons). Name recognition is what I believe drives most votes.

If people believe that the reason people are not more engaged in the dialogue in this forum is because there are not term limits, I believe they are living in a fantasy land. NOTHING has prohibited anyone from being an active and constructive contributor to this forum. Even if you said that two of the people standing for election could not, that would still only open up two spots to the many people who ran for office.

The people who participate and are active are people who care and take an interest in this forum. The others are benevolent users who probably are fine with NOT having a say in the day to day management of this board.

I have some constructive ideas for improving the management of FT on a day-to-day basis.

This is not one of them.

This is an idea to allow more and different people to be engaged in FlyerTalk.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people perceive some sort of 'anti-moderation' agenda to this proposal. It limits the amount of time populists like me can serve every bit as much as it limits the amount of time moderators can serve. Not because I am a populist or because someone else is a moderator. Because letting more people get involved is in the long-term best interests of FlyerTalk.

Except the proposal does not truly limit your participation... you just have to not run for one year... and then you can come back for another four years.... not really doing much to get new blood engaged in Talkboard. I am a firm believer that most people get elected to Talkboard because of being known (for good or bad reasons). Name recognition is what I believe drives most votes.

If people believe that the reason people are not more engaged in the dialogue in this forum is because there are not term limits, I believe they are living in a fantasy land. NOTHING has prohibited anyone from being an active and constructive contributor to this forum. Even if you said that two of the people standing for election could not, that would still only open up two spots to the many people who ran for office.

The people who participate and are active are people who care and take an interest in this forum. The others are benevolent users who probably are fine with NOT having a say in the day to day management of this board.

Well perfect is the enemy of good enough. I'd support 'tougher' term limits. But politics is the art of compromise.

Almost anything that opens FT up to more volunteers is a good thing. This does that.

And I have more ideas to get more people involved in the management of FT. Stay tuned. :)

I support term limits in part because I think that there are far more people willing to volunteer to help FT than what we currently see. I see this as a way to help engage those willing to volunteer, and perhaps a way to prod more people into volunteering as well.

When the same people serve for long periods of time, my experiences have been that it discourages new people from wanting to volunteer. They feel their opinions and ideas will be discouraged or ignored, and at that point, why bother?

I've seen this first-hand in other organizations, and it has kept people from participating who might otherwise have great ideas on how to improve the organization.

Exactly. Well-said. ^

Well perfect is the enemy of good enough.
(snip)
But politics is the art of compromise.

^
This is the new, improved koko. This is why this year's TalkBoard will be fun, not frustrating.

I have some constructive ideas for improving the management of FT on a day-to-day basis.

This is not one of them.

This is an idea to allow more and different people to be engaged in FlyerTalk.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people perceive some sort of 'anti-moderation' agenda to this proposal. It limits the amount of time populists like me can serve every bit as much as it limits the amount of time moderators can serve. Not because I am a populist or because someone else is a moderator. Because letting more people get involved is in the long-term best interests of FlyerTalk.Bolding mine: Correct-it is about term limits and nothing else tho imho, those who are both moderators and TB members are feeling threatened that (and again, imho) a little piece of their fiefdom is being taken away

I like this proposal as striking a reasonable balance between strict term limits and none at all. Strict term limits (2 and you are out) are a great way to handcuff an organization... why would you freeze out your best people for life when your membership wants to elect them? At the other end of the spectrum, no term limits can lead to stagnation due to the generally stubborn incumbency advantage.

This proposal requires regular refreshing, allowing new people to prove (or disprove) themselves while providing a minimal level of frustration of voter preference since the disqualification period is very brief.

If I understand correctly, this is a private forum. This is not a governments where excessive length of time on the board could lead to corruption, abuse of power etc.

Exactly.

It seems to me that the entire point of term limits is to prevent people from using an office to consolidate power such that future candidates are inherently disadvantaged. For this to have any relevance, there has to be power involved...and I simply don't see how this applies here. Every other argument makes little sense to me.

Bottom line is that if a given slate of TB members was running things into the ground, we could simply vote them out.

I say no to this.

I am in favor of the proposal.

Term limits?

Absolutely!!^

I like this proposal as striking a reasonable balance between strict term limits and none at all. Strict term limits (2 and you are out) are a great way to handcuff an organization... why would you freeze out your best people for life when your membership wants to elect them? At the other end of the spectrum, no term limits can lead to stagnation due to the generally stubborn incumbency advantage.

This proposal requires regular refreshing, allowing new people to prove (or disprove) themselves while providing a minimal level of frustration of voter preference since the disqualification period is very brief.

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated.

Cheers.

how do we vote?

how do we vote?

You don't - Only the elected members of the Talkboard do. Take a look: LINK (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/918161-what-talkboard-how-new-forums-other-suggestions-considered.html)

http://images9.cpcache.com/product_zoom/472455289v2_160x160_Front_padToSquare-true.jpg

http://images9.cpcache.com/product_zoom/472455289v2_160x160_Front_padToSquare-true.jpg

I think you strayed from OmniPR ;) :p :D

Cheers.

...I think our members are competent enough to vote for those they think do a good job and those folks should be allowed to serve as the members choose them.

+1

It is a bit disturbing to read so many of you seem to think that having more turnover on TB will make TB more amenable to change. How do you know that - the members may continue to elect TB representatives who prefer the status quo?

Is this being done because you think it will be good for FT, or because there are certain individuals on TB who you want to get off, but keep being elected by the members?

If it's the latter, well frankly, I'd be very disappointed that you were trying to change the rules because you don't approve of whom the members elect. You don't get to make that choice - they do.

I think this does have potential to be a positive thing, but I fear it is being done for underhand, manipulative reasons, where you are trying to circumvent who the members have been chosing to represent them and stack TB to be more like what you would like to see, rather than what the members would like to see.

It seems some would like to see TB set itself up in opposition to the management of FT - there would be only one outcome to that, and that would not be good for TB or for the members you supposedly represent.
Well put, Jenbel, like always! ^

Just let the voters decide and votes speak. I am sure FTers are savvy enough to get the best into the office.

What I am trying to do is what we all should aspire to do - evaluate the post not the poster. I am trying to separate what may be an intent I don't care for, from from the actual proposal, which with the "one year off and can be re-elected" proposal seems quite decent.

I would NOT be in favor of absolute term limits and am only marginally in favor of the proposal cited above but I'd be OK with that.

What I am trying to do is what we all should aspire to do - evaluate the post not the poster. I am trying to separate what may be an intent I don't care for, from from the actual proposal, which with the "one year off and can be re-elected" proposal seems quite decent.

I would NOT be in favor of absolute term limits and am only marginally in favor of the proposal cited above but I'd be OK with that.

Appreciate you trying to separate posts from posters, and evaluate the proposal on its merits.

I think souvlaki summarizes it nicely in terms of the merits.

"I like this proposal as striking a reasonable balance between strict term limits and none at all. Strict term limits (2 and you are out) are a great way to handcuff an organization... why would you freeze out your best people for life when your membership wants to elect them? At the other end of the spectrum, no term limits can lead to stagnation due to the generally stubborn incumbency advantage.

This proposal requires regular refreshing, allowing new people to prove (or disprove) themselves while providing a minimal level of frustration of voter preference since the disqualification period is very brief."

Cheers.

I voted against this already...I think our members are competent enough to vote for those they think do a good job and those folks should be allowed to serve as the members choose them.

That said, as of now, this year is likely my last year running for TalkBoard when my term expires, so this doesn't really impact me personally.

I agree!

I support this motion .... and would support term limits for the mods, too.

I agree on the term limits proposal. Enough of the good old boy system.

When are the results in?

When are the results in?

"This vote will close on December 27, 2011 at 6:30pm pm or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first." (first post)

To help the remaining undecided TB members, I have tallied all the comments from everyone who has contributed to this thread and the "Talk Board is considering Term Limits" thread. (Forgive me if my count is slightly off.)

Total: For 44, Against 13

Breaking that down:

TB Members: For 5, Against 2

Moderators: For 3, Against 5

Regular Members (non-mods): For 36, Against 6

Two TB members who are also mods participated in this discussion. Those votes are included in the TB tally and not the moderator tally.

To help the remaining undecided TB members, I have tallied all the comments from everyone who has contributed to this thread and the "Talk Board is considering Term Limits" thread. (Forgive me if my count is slightly off.)

Total: For 43, Against 14

Breaking that down:

TB Members: For 4, Against 2

Moderators: For 3, Against 6

Regular Members (non-mods): For 36, Against 6

One TB member who is also a mod participated in this discussion. That vote is included in the TB tally and not the moderator tally.

This speaks volumes. Its very interesting to see the main argument against term limits; let the voters decide.

Need I say more:confused:

To help the remaining undecided TB members, I have tallied all the comments from everyone who has contributed to this thread and the "Talk Board is considering Term Limits" thread. (Forgive me if my count is slightly off.)

Total: For 43, Against 14

Breaking that down:

TB Members: For 4, Against 2

Moderators: For 3, Against 6

Regular Members (non-mods): For 36, Against 6

One TB member who is also a mod participated in this discussion. That vote is included in the TB tally and not the moderator tally.
I think this is not that accurate. I see two TB/Mod members posting in this thread, not one.

I also don't think you have characterised the mods posting correctly, including myself. Many of us are not clear black and white on this issue. I like the proposal as made for example, but from some of the comments on this thread fear it is being done for the wrong reasons.

So there are ScottC, Markie and nsx clearly in favour, then you have others like myself, wharvey, squeakr and Prospero who have expressed neither a clear preference, or have expressed some ambivalence about this proposal - but we've all been shoved into the outright 'No'.

Is there a reason why you've mischaracterised my views so badly? :confused:

To help the remaining undecided TB members, I have tallied all the comments from everyone who has contributed to this thread and the "Talk Board is considering Term Limits" thread. (Forgive me if my count is slightly off.)

Total: For 43, Against 14

Breaking that down:

TB Members: For 4, Against 2

Moderators: For 3, Against 6

Regular Members (non-mods): For 36, Against 6

One TB member who is also a mod participated in this discussion. That vote is included in the TB tally and not the moderator tally.

Thank you very much. Very, very telling.

Perhaps the Talk Board can consider activating the polling feature in the future to get a better sense of what the membership thinks about particular issues.

I think this is not that accurate. I see two TB/Mod members posting in this thread, not one.

Correct. Two have posted but only one has offered which way the person will vote (that I could tell). I have the views from Spiff, which I have tallied. I also see that nsx has posted as well, but I did not see where that member has posted which direction that he/she (forgive me, I do not know) will vote. Also, nsx did not give a position during the recent campaign, which I also checked.

I also don't think you have characterised the mods posting correctly, including myself. Many of us are not clear black and white on this issue. I like the proposal as made for example, but from some of the comments on this thread fear it is being done for the wrong reasons.

I interpreted from your post that you would vote against the proposal, had you been on TB. Out of respect for you, I will modify my post.

If a member did not offer a strong opinion in either direction, I did not tally a vote from that person.

So there are ScottC, Markie and nsx clearly in favour, then you have others like myself, wharvey, squeakr and Prospero who have expressed neither a clear preference, or have expressed some ambivalence about this proposal - but we've all been shoved into the outright 'No'.

Like I said, I have not seen a post from nsx where an opinion toward one direction was given.

wharvey in post #33 says I am not a fan of term limits, I do trust that people vote for who they want to represent them... be it moderators or non-moderators or ambassadors.

I did not register a tally from squeakr.

Prospero stated in post #87: Might I add, where is there any evidence of cronyism setting in on TB? Each year, the membership has elected in fresh representatives as well as re-elected experienced TB members. Does anyone seriously believe this mix is unhealthy?

Is there a reason why you've mischaracterised my views so badly? :confused:

If I did, I sincerely apologize. I am modifying my above post to reflect that.

Is there a reason why you've mischaracterised my views so badly? :confused:

As he has used only yes/no, I clearly understand the labelling of your stand. Based on your posts, I assume the confusion would have been bigger if put in the other group. Big ^ to the poster collecting the data.

Jenbel you make a very valid point that the support is actually stronger for the proposal than what it looks like.

Perhaps the Talk Board can consider activating the polling feature in the future to get a better sense of what the membership thinks about particular issues.

This is a great proposal- which I guess deserves its own thread- and some serious consideration@:-)

I've already voted & voted against this. But, FWIW, I did a similar tally about a week ago & posted the following in the TB forum:

Here's what the numbers from the vote thread show:

A total of 24 non-TalkBoard members expressed specific thoughts.

19 of them supported the motion
5 of them do not support the motion

Not that it should matter, but out of those people, 6 had been on FlyerTalk less than 18 months and the other 18 had been around much longer.

Verdict?

Of the members that see the announcements (and as of this writing, SanDiego1k's announcement has been viewed 2,258 times), only 1% of the members bothered to add their opinion (and for what it's worth, 11 out of the 24 people who posted, post regularly in the TalkBoard forum anyways - so really, the only "new traffic" was 13 members, IMHO).

Out of those that bothered to post, the majority do want term limits. But given the fact that the majority who viewed the thread & are aware of our pending vote, didn't bother posting one way or another, my assumption is that they really don't give a crap.

I've voted against this because I really do believe that the members are smart enough to make their own decisions and we should let them. And for what it's worth, I do not plan on running for TalkBoard again after my current term is up so this has absolutely no impact on me, personally.

If this passes, neither nsx, nor Spiff will be able to be part of this board again when their terms are up...jackal, I believe you came on in July 2010, when Radioman was removed from the board - the way this is written, since you'll have served from July 2010 to theoretically November 2013, you too will not be able to run for another term since you'll have completed 3 out of 4 years of consecutive service.

As I've said before, if we had a small leadership coucil, then yes, by all means, term limits. But we don't - we have 9 people & there's been turnover every year. All 9 people's votes are equal. The President & Vice President positions are purely administrative, nothing more, IMHO - so even that doesn't really matter all that much in terms of term limits, IMHO.

A referendum being suggested?

The boards I've seen usually has an attitude, "we're voted by the electorate.. if they don't like how we vote, then the members can always vote us out at the next AGM."

I'm a bit surprised by how things go on a board.. just baffles me to the type of thinking adopted sometimes.

I think consensus needs to built and achieved to the extent of changes if any, will be implemented by the board.. the proposal here seems static take it or leave it.. develop the idea to consensus to something that can be adopted for the long terms, instead of trying to revisit on a regular basis.. I hope the TalkBoard can have some discussions and dialogue on this..

I also see that nsx has posted as well, but I did not see where that member has posted which direction that he/she (forgive me, I do not know) will vote. Also, nsx did not give a position during the recent campaign, which I also checked.

Good research, except for one thing: I introduced this proposal. It would be unreasonable for me to oppose my own proposal! I have already voted for it.

Good research, except for one thing: I introduced this proposal. It would be unreasonable for me to oppose my own proposal! I have already voted for it.

Good point.. Tally has been updated.

Of the members that see the announcements (and as of this writing, SanDiego1k's announcement has been viewed 2,258 times), only 1% of the members bothered to add their opinion...

Statistics are the most sophisticated lies:D

2258 views are not 2258 members! Most or at least many members posting are subscribing and everytime they come back its a new view. Likely even a new view when you click on page 2 etc.

I roughly estimate unique viewers to be 10% (others may have better figures for the ratio), which will give 10% bothering to post.

With numbers at this size, also ratios tend to be quite accurate. At least I would say you would have the burden of proof choosing to neglect it.

Statistics are the most sophisticated lies:D

2258 views are not 2258 members! Most or at least many members posting are subscribing and everytime they come back its a new view. Likely even a new view when you click on page 2 etc.

I roughly estimate unique viewers to be 10% (others may have better figures for the ratio), which will give 10% bothering to post.

With numbers at this size, also ratios tend to be quite accurate. At least I would say you would have the burden of proof choosing to neglect it.

Also be careful as to what you read & how you interpret it ;)

I was not referring to this thread. I was referring to SanDiego1k's announcement - which at the time, announced this vote (and not the Texas forum vote). I realize it's views, not individual members, but I doubt too many members were re-reading the same announcement, once announced...

As previously noted, my assumption is that most members don't really give a crap on this particular motion...at the end of the day, we're elected to represent the voters and what we believe to be in the best interest of FlyerTalk. I don't believe that limiting terms to 2 terms is necessarily in the best interest of FT. I'm not planning on running again either way - but if Spiff, nsx, or jackal - all who are very passionate TalkBoard member want to run again, I would have no issues with that - this motion prevents that. I don't always agree with them, but out of the 6 years that I've served on TalkBoard - I would say that the three of them (and probably Markie, kokonutz and Jenbel) are the most passionated TalkBoard members I've had the pleasure of serving with.

I would hate to see FlyerTalk lose their passion even for 1 year if they wanted to contribute.

And it's not to say that new members can't bring anything to the table, such as fresh ideas, but we've seen some members of recent TalkBoards be fairly useless and non-participating members, IMHO.

A referendum being suggested?

The boards I've seen usually has an attitude, "we're voted by the electorate.. if they don't like how we vote, then the members can always vote us out at the next AGM."

I'm a bit surprised by how things go on a board.. just baffles me to the type of thinking adopted sometimes.

I think consensus needs to built and achieved to the extent of changes if any, will be implemented by the board.. the proposal here seems static take it or leave it.. develop the idea to consensus to something that can be adopted for the long terms, instead of trying to revisit on a regular basis.. I hope the TalkBoard can have some discussions and dialogue on this..

I'm not sure if you're referring to TB items in general or this motion. But this motion is a good compromise & I think better serves FT.

As souvlaki stated,

"I like this proposal as striking a reasonable balance between strict term limits and none at all. Strict term limits (2 and you are out) are a great way to handcuff an organization... why would you freeze out your best people for life when your membership wants to elect them? At the other end of the spectrum, no term limits can lead to stagnation due to the generally stubborn incumbency advantage.

This proposal requires regular refreshing, allowing new people to prove (or disprove) themselves while providing a minimal level of frustration of voter preference since the disqualification period is very brief."

I'm also pleased to see that we've had a # of new (to the forum, and no disrespect to the regulars) FTers weigh in on the term limits issue. When looking at normal FTers views (neither mod nor TB), they are indeed supportive of TB term limits.

Cheers.

I realize it's views, not individual members, but I doubt too many members were re-reading the same announcement, once announced....

This is interesting, because in that case I agree that not that many are counted more than once (except for maybe once for term limits, and once after Texas was included). With 6000+ views, its safe to say that at least several thousand FTers were curious on the subject. So maybe more than you think are interested in the term limits proposal? Most probably dont have to much to add to the discussion (another thing if they were allowed to vote by a poll), especially maybe on forum creation when we have seen how +1 posters have been treated lately. Rigid due diligence has been the norm.

And it's not to say that new members can't bring anything to the table, such as fresh ideas, but we've seen some members of recent TalkBoards be fairly useless and non-participating members, IMHO.

TB should have runner-ups, able to vote on abstentions.

Also 3 strike out should be the rule, if elected members find themselves not able to participate (=minimum vote).

Also 3 strike out should be the rule, if elected members find themselves not able to participate (=minimum vote).

There's already a 3-strike rule in place. And any TB member can request another be removed for cause (although it's got to be for a legit reason - see the TB Guidelines for more info).

Whereas polls can be beneficial, I don't like them all that much for simple yes/no - if it were yes/no/don't care, maybe more beneficial...with that said, I prefer the discussion because 1) opinions can be swayed with discussions (as mine has with discussion) and voters can only vote once and 2) Each peson can determine their own value as to the noise-signal ratio and whether this is right or not, I value the opinion of an FTer who has been a member longer than a new person who has just joined the community...not saying newbies can't bring good discussion to the table, they can, but someone who has been a participant in this community's voice is more important to me than someone who is just starting out in this community - although I'll listen and consider all as a TB member.

I'm not sure if you're referring to TB items in general or this motion. But this motion is a good compromise & I think better serves FT.

As souvlaki stated,

"I like this proposal as striking a reasonable balance between strict term limits and none at all. Strict term limits (2 and you are out) are a great way to handcuff an organization... why would you freeze out your best people for life when your membership wants to elect them? At the other end of the spectrum, no term limits can lead to stagnation due to the generally stubborn incumbency advantage.

This proposal requires regular refreshing, allowing new people to prove (or disprove) themselves while providing a minimal level of frustration of voter preference since the disqualification period is very brief."

I'm also pleased to see that we've had a # of new (to the forum, and no disrespect to the regulars) FTers weigh in on the term limits issue. When looking at normal FTers views (neither mod nor TB), they are indeed supportive of TB term limits.

Cheers.

Just referring to Boards in general..

The handcuffing parallel you speak of reminds me of the rules placed on US presidency.. serve 2 terms and you're out..

But US is still standing as one of the economic powerhouses of the world, so seems the handcuffing didn't surface.. this coming from a Canadian.:)

I've been away for a bit, so forgive me for being late to the party. I've tried reading the whole thread, but please forgive me if I have rehashed some points.

I am for creating term limits. To be clear, I don't think these should be permanent limits; just a cap on consecutive terms.

There are 2.5 reasons for term limits:

To prevent TB members from becoming jaded
To give members a chance to view FT once again from the perspective of a regular member, and not with the "beer glasses" of a TB member (these 2 reasons are connected)
Members who constantly run again and again create a name for themselves, giving them better recognition on FT and therefore an unfair advantage over newcomers who want to join

To reiterate, I oppose this measure.

Does anyone know if FT board members who have voted can change their vote once cast, before the ending of voting, or until all votes cast?

This may appear somewhere. Do we have a live running tote board ?

IB: Are we left to get a Carl Rove Chalk board? You want more members to participate? Get something flashy.... I'm going to sleep here! How about a scroll indicating who has voted and which way? Time till the end of voting etc? or something better!

Does anyone know if FT board members who have voted can change their vote once cast, before the ending of voting, or until all votes cast?


From the TalkBoard guidelines:

"v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final."

In the past, we've had an error correction due to a mis-click. Otherwise, TB members are not able to change their votes once cast. We do have 14 days to vote, so one usually has time to weigh all the options and implications of their vote.

From the TalkBoard guidelines:

"v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final."

In the past, we've had a error correction due to a mis-click. Otherwise, TB members are not able to change their votes once cast. We do have 14 days to vote, so one usually has time to weigh all the options and implications of their vote.

Excellent! Thanks for the prompt reply.

Exactly.

It seems to me that the entire point of term limits is to prevent people from using an office to consolidate power such that future candidates are inherently disadvantaged. For this to have any relevance, there has to be power involved...and I simply don't see how this applies here. Every other argument makes little sense to me.

Bottom line is that if a given slate of TB members was running things into the ground, we could simply vote them out.

I say no to this.

Personally, I agree with as219's stance above.

To me, the TalkBoard seems most like one of these kinds of boards: http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/mayor/boards/ab_gen.htm

Note that all but the first one explicitly do not have term limits. I think the same reason for that is the same reason why term limits are not necessary for the TalkBoard, even if I do gravitate towards the idea of term limits in governmental legislatures.

However--there has been a pretty vocal response from the membership here. In a brief survey of the two public threads on this issue, there have been posts from 60 FlyerTalk members who are not currently serving on the TalkBoard. 42 have supported the measure, 12 have opposed it, and 6 posted commentary without taking an explicit position.

One of my campaign positions was to place a high value on feedback from the membership, even if it contradicts my own opinion. As such, and because while I don't think it's a necessary measure, I also don't see that passing it will have an detrimental effect on the TalkBoard, I have gone ahead and cast my vote in support of this measure.

Thank you for your patience as I attempted to balance a proper analysis of this measure with a brief recess from FlyerTalk as I dealt with some developments in my offline personal life. And with that, I'll send my appreciation for everyone who voted for me for the TalkBoard for this, my now final, TalkBoard term. :)

On 26 December 2011, the TalkBoard passed, 6-3:

Moved by nsx and seconded by SkiAdcock:

The TalkBoard recommends modifying the TalkBoard guidelines as follows:

Add a new paragraph 3.B.i.e.
e. TalkBoard members who are subject to the term limit defined in Section 3.D.i shall be ineligible to be candidates in the current year.

Revise paragraph 3.D.i
i. TalkBoard Member: The term of a TalkBoard member shall be two (2) years. There is no limit to the consecutive or cumulative number of terms to which a member may be re-elected. Five TalkBoard members shall be elected during odd numbered years and four TalkBoard members shall be elected during even numbered years. Term Limit: A FlyerTalk member is ineligible to be a candidate in the current TalkBoard election if by the end of the election period the member will have served on the TalkBoard more than three years out of the preceding four-year period.

Voting for: goalie, jackal, kokonutz, nsx, RichMSN, SkiAdcock

Voting against: bhatnasx, Cholula, Spiff

Thanks for the update..

Question: What were the reasons in the past to not change the old policy and leave it status quo?

Thanks for the update..

Question: What were the reasons in the past to not change the old policy and leave it status quo?

Insufficient support among TB members.

Personally, I agree with as219's stance above.

To me, the TalkBoard seems most like one of these kinds of boards: http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/mayor/boards/ab_gen.htm

Note that all but the first one explicitly do not have term limits. I think the same reason for that is the same reason why term limits are not necessary for the TalkBoard, even if I do gravitate towards the idea of term limits in governmental legislatures.

However--there has been a pretty vocal response from the membership here. In a brief survey of the two public threads on this issue, there have been posts from 60 FlyerTalk members who are not currently serving on the TalkBoard. 42 have supported the measure, 12 have opposed it, and 6 posted commentary without taking an explicit position.

One of my campaign positions was to place a high value on feedback from the membership, even if it contradicts my own opinion. As such, and because while I don't think it's a necessary measure, I also don't see that passing it will have an detrimental effect on the TalkBoard, I have gone ahead and cast my vote in support of this measure.

Thank you for your patience as I attempted to balance a proper analysis of this measure with a brief recess from FlyerTalk as I dealt with some developments in my offline personal life. And with that, I'll send my appreciation for everyone who voted for me for the TalkBoard for this, my now final, TalkBoard term. :)

Hope I'm not overstepping bounds here, but... if you're against the proposal, why did you vote in favor of it? Or am I misunderstanding either your post or your vote?

Hope I'm not overstepping bounds here, but... if you're against the proposal, why did you vote in favor of it? Or am I misunderstanding either your post or your vote?

Jackal is as he stated following up on his campaign promises^

Jackal is as he stated following up on his campaign promises^

I didn't see the second half of his post :o

While I wish the motion had gone further, I want to thank the Talkboard for moving on the recommendation so quickly.

While I wish the motion had gone further, I want to thank the Talkboard for moving on the recommendation so quickly.

I agree. Having been elected to TB twice, I know that FlyerTalk will not collapse if I become ineligible to run again. (Which, as I have said before, I will not do under any circumstances.)

While I wish the motion had gone further, I want to thank the Talkboard for moving on the recommendation so quickly.

Sometimes, you have to take what you can get and then, as the composition of the board changes, revise it to strengthen it.

Jackal is as he stated following up on his campaign promises^

So, um, vote for me for real office if I ever run in real life, please? I'm probably the only person to ever follow up on a campaign promise. :p

While I wish the motion had gone further, I want to thank the Talkboard for moving on the recommendation so quickly.

Yes.. Lightning fast..

So there is a new need for speed built in urgency?.. that's a good sign amongst Boards.:)

I'm very impressed with the action of the TalkBoard on this guideline revision! :)

I support this proposal ^^

I support this proposal as well.

I support this proposal as well.

Too late. ;) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions/1295449-motio-passed-talkboard-term-limits.html

Too late. ;) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions/1295449-motio-passed-talkboard-term-limits.html

Well...I STILL support it! :o

One of my campaign positions was to place a high value on feedback from the membership, even if it contradicts my own opinion. As such, and because while I don't think it's a necessary measure, I also don't see that passing it will have an detrimental effect on the TalkBoard, I have gone ahead and cast my vote in support of this measure.

Thank you for your patience as I attempted to balance a proper analysis of this measure with a brief recess from FlyerTalk as I dealt with some developments in my offline personal life. And with that, I'll send my appreciation for everyone who voted for me for the TalkBoard for this, my now final, TalkBoard term. :)

^^ Thanks to you, goalie, kokonutz, nsx, RichMSN, SkiAdcock!

Nice work, Board!

Did I miss the notice that this well considered and discussed Talk Board "recommendation" has been adopted as policy by FT?

Details of the decision were posted in another TBT subform, Town Hall - Official TalkBoard Voting Decisions (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions-605/).

Details of the decision were posted in another TBT subform, Town Hall - Official TalkBoard Voting Decisions (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions-605/).

Correct. Also, the guidelines were updated as well to reflect the change.

Cheers.

Correct. Also, the guidelines were updated as well to reflect the change.

Cheers.

Fantastic! I hadn't seen anything indicating that the TB recommendation had been adopted.

Thanks.

This motion made it onto this month's Talkmail as the top story..