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?
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of faces if you look at them right.
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
Last edited by Jenbel; Nov 8, 06 at 12:40 pm.
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?
A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain.
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.
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.
Programs: BAEC Gold, Priority Club RA, Lots of other cards
I donít 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.