In addition to the generic list Sharon quotes above, I’m trying to work on a pros and cons list specific to this issue as it relates to FT, since that’s how my mind tends to work.

I’ve combed the threads and here is what I have come up with.

Anything missing on either side?


Pros of term limits as proposed:

Overcomes inherent incumbent advantage, ensuring new blood and fresh ideas in each TB seat every four years at the most.

Motivates TB members to be active rather than passive stewards of FT as their time to serve is limited.

Prevents a permanent class of TB members from emerging/prevents posters from using long-term service on TB as a CV-builder for their travel blogs, services or other for-profit ventures.

Ensures that TB members spend at least one year out of five experiencing FT from the perspective of a poster rather than a TB member/poster.

Ensures that no weirdo masochists use prolonged service on the TB to get their sick jollies.



Cons of term limits as proposed:

Limits the ability of a poster to vote for their favorite successful candidate to be on the TB three times in a row.

Would require even incredibly effective, popular TB members to take a year off every four years.

On the flip side, potentially does not go far enough by allowing a TB veteran to run again after taking a year off.