I have long been an advocate of a TB that is responsive and responsible to the community of FT posters.

To that end I'd like to see the TB consider amending their guidelines to include a conflict of interest policy.

I think TB members should take a leave of absence from leadership roles at sites that compete with FT in the 'travel community space.' For example, MilePoint is a direct competitor to FT and there could be a conflict of interests to serve in a leadership capacity on both sites. To be clear, I am not saying there IS a conflict. I'm saying there is the perception of one and there clearly COULD be one.

Gleff seemed to acknowledge this when he resigned from the TB (and its presidency) to go work on a competing site.

I think that was the right thing to do and should it be made part of the TB Guidelines that TB members not take leadership positions on competing sites because, although it is entirely possible perfectly reasonable to love and post on both sites, I think that FT posters have a right to demand that their elected representatives be FTers first and foremost if they are going to represent us to the CD and IB.

And this would be doubly-troubling if a TB member had a financial interest in a competing site.

And MilePoint is only the current example. There have been FT clones and related sites in the past, including TireFlock, moremiles, etc.

I think our TB members should be required to focus their leadership role on our community if they want to lead us.