TalkBoard Elections/06 - Question 19: Minimum Requirements

This question was submitted by empedocles:
Do you believe that there need to be minimum requirements (time/posts/etc.) to stand for a TalkBoard seat?

Yes I do. A combination of time & posts.

I would leave the specifics for discussion/voting by the Talk Board or decision by Randy.

Yes. I addressed this here:

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6662725&postcount=4

There are three candidates who clearly cannot receive my support. They have not participated at all on FT and have not broken their silence on the board to participate in this series of questions. If elected to TalkBoard, I will propose a reasonable minimum standard for participation in order for candidates to be eligible. It only makes sense, IMO.

I would argue as a starting point that a candidate should be a member for a year and have at least 100 posts, but those are just numbers and this is something the TalkBoard can and should address next year. I hope that includes me.

I'm not 100% certain that there should be a minimum requirement based on a number count because I've seen some posters that have 3 months of FT & have well over 300 posts (it took me much longer to get there) - those posters have found a community that they want to be a part of - and if they want to help shape it, I think that's great.

That said, there is no way I would vote for someone (or encourage anyone else to vote for someone) who has no public FlyerTalk experience. How can someone who has never really been a part of the community really help decide what's right for the community?

first reaction was pretty much the same as those who have already posted - that limits could be good. But actually, does it make a difference? Such candidates have generally scored very low in the elections, as many people seem to agree that they want a certain amount of experience, or to be able to see the candidates in action on the board. I think we just trust the Flyertalk members to elect who they want to elect - and if they want someone with 5 posts and three days on the board, then so be it. But I don't think they ever will :)

The problem that enters into the requirements equation is that, if there is not a technology-based solution, who reviews potential candidates to see if they meet the qualification? The House of Miles? The TalkBoard?

Nah. Let the market decide who the best candidates are, not some arbitrary rules.

My answer here is basically the same one I gave in regards to setting maximum terms in office. I don't like the idea because it deprives the voter of the opportunity of casting his ballot for someone who wants to be in office.

However, just as I said I would be very hesitant to vote in someone for a third term, I would be even more leary of voting for someone who has little or no experience with FlyerTalk.

But never say "never". Rquesty has only 20 posts on FlyerTalk but if he were to seek to serve on TalkBoard I would vote for him without any hesitation.

For those of you not familiar with that user name, his full name is Richard Quest. IMHO, he is one of the best anchors on CNN and hosts its "Business Traveler" segments. I think he would be a wonderful TB asset.

7 years and 6729 posts.

I think that there should be a minimum amount of time and votes as a requirement however at the end of the day it will be a non-issue as no one but the odd joker/prankster will be voting for them anyway.

I honestly do not believe there should be a minimum.

I have seen members with 2 posts make extraordinary contributions and members with over 10,000 posts add nothing substantial for most of those posts (in my opinion).

I think fresh opinions can be very valuable to the Talkboard. However, we do know that people vote for people they are comfortable and familiar with... that is a fact.

William

Hi,

I don’t think that their should be any sort of minimum requirement to stand for TalkBoard as I think the voters will read the peoples profiles, check out what they do (and folk so notice posting levels etc) and read what they have to say in this discussion forum.

Keep it simple and let the voters decide.

Regards

AFAIK this is a volunteer position. I have taken alot from FT over the last 5 years. It is time to give back. The requirement should be the desire to serve our membership.

The requirement should be the desire to serve our membership.

I like that answer. :)

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6666294&postcount=5

Regards,
Rich

I don't believe there should be a minimum requirement - but I also think that this (time on FT and posting experience) should be one of several factors that individuals consider when voting for a candidate.

No
If someone has good views and have read this forum for years for instance, but just created a account a short time ago, and could make a difference then I say he/she should be on TB

No.

If they meet the requirements (having been a registered member by the time the election is announced) and register their candidacy in time, they should be permitted to run. It will then be up to them to present a good case for election, as there likely won't be as much evidence of their ability to serve as some of the other candidates may have.

My answer here is basically the same one I gave in regards to setting maximum terms in office. I don't like the idea because it deprives the voter of the opportunity of casting his ballot for someone who wants to be in office.

However, just as I said I would be very hesitant to vote in someone for a third term, I would be even more leary of voting for someone who has little or no experience with FlyerTalk.

But never say "never". Rquesty has only 20 posts on FlyerTalk but if he were to seek to serve on TalkBoard I would vote for him without any hesitation.

For those of you not familiar with that user name, his full name is Richard Quest. IMHO, he is one of the best anchors on CNN and hosts its "Business Traveler" segments. I think he would be a wonderful TB asset.

Dovster,

I appreciate your giving an example of someone you'd vote for with few posts. After thinking about this a while, I wouldn't vote for him. He hasn't chosen to spend any time on FlyerTalk participating. This is a user advisory board that, in my opinion, should be composed of .... users.

I respect your opinion, regardless.

--Rich

Rich, I certainly can't argue with you about that. As I said, Rquesty would have been my rare exception to the rule. I guess it is because I am extremely impressed by his combination of professionalism and humor.

Of course, if TalkBoard Meeting were held in person instead of in the internet, I would prefer having his co-anchor, Hala Gorani, there!

Rich, I certainly can't argue with you about that. As I said, Rquesty would have been my rare exception to the rule. I guess it is because I am extremely impressed by his combination of professionalism and humor.

Of course, if TalkBoard Meeting were held in person instead of in the internet, I would prefer having his co-anchor, Hala Gorani, there!

This illustrates why I changed my original position, though. Reasonable members should be allowed to decide for themselves what would be best for TalkBoard.

You said Hala Gorani and I immediately thought of Hoda Kotb. Of course, I lived in New Orleans when Hoda was there.

Then I thought of Suzanne Malveaux. I'd better stop now...... :D

After reading all the the responses my belief in the electorate of FlyerTalk has been reinforced, and candidates who do not show contribution to the community most likely do not have a chance. Requirements for standing for a TalkBoard seat seems to be a non-issue, unless to simply cut down on the fluff a little.

He hasn't chosen to spend any time on FlyerTalk participating.

Not *entirely* true... I was on part of the mileage run he did with Randy a few months ago. ;)

But in point, yes... he hasn't been as visible as other participants here - and I'm sure if Randy wanted his advice, well... he has a direct line. :D

I think that so long as a member is in good standing they should be eligible. If we start placing numerous guidelines, what is the point of having an open candidate election, might as well appoint people and that defeats the point totally.