Founder of FlyerTalk
This question was submitted by dhammer53:
Do the candidates feel there should be 'term limits' for TalkBoard members?
Do the candidates feel there should be 'term limits' for TalkBoard members?
Yes, there should be to help ensure a fresh perspective. This also gives other people a chance to see and experience the how a major board with thousands of members is run.
I don't believe in term limits for any office, be it TalkBoard or the U.S. presidency. This is not to protect the officeholder, but rather to protect the voter -- he should have the right to cast his ballot for any person who wants the office.
That said, I believe that a change in TalkBoard's make up is generally a very healthy thing. It brings in new people with fresh ideas.
Last year, I voted for (and publicly endorsed) Gleff for a third term in office. For me, it was an exceptional decision -- and I did so only because I consider Gleff to be a very exceptional person.
I can't think of any other person I would have voted in for a third term. (I consider the year I spent on TalkBoard as a full term. This would be my second if I am elected. I will not run for a third term -- and should I ever go back on this, you are all free to throw that statement in my face.)
That said, I believe that a change in TalkBoard's make up is generally a very healthy thing. It brings in new people with fresh ideas.
Last year, I voted for (and publicly endorsed) Gleff for a third term in office. For me, it was an exceptional decision -- and I did so only because I consider Gleff to be a very exceptional person.
I can't think of any other person I would have voted in for a third term. (I consider the year I spent on TalkBoard as a full term. This would be my second if I am elected. I will not run for a third term -- and should I ever go back on this, you are all free to throw that statement in my face.)
Yes, no more than 50 terms in office.... 
That is a term limit.
If a member is adding value and the membership wants them to continue adding value, then I see no reason to not vote for them. With 9 members, it is almost impossible to not have "new blood" voted in each election. It may not always happen... and that is not always bad.
William
That is a term limit.
If a member is adding value and the membership wants them to continue adding value, then I see no reason to not vote for them. With 9 members, it is almost impossible to not have "new blood" voted in each election. It may not always happen... and that is not always bad.
William
Hi
Yet again another very good question. Terms limits is something that is designed to bring fresh faces onto a committee, but I have seen it too many times when people have stood down due to term limits only to be replaced by folk who do not really match upto thats persons standards and commitment.
Or in worse case scenarios no one has came forward to fill the position and then it just gets into one big mess.
There is always going to be natural changes due to people coming off a committee for health reasons, job changes, move of location, wife doing her nut due to time spent on computer etc.
I would say just leave things the way they are but its something that can be reviewed.
Regards
Yet again another very good question. Terms limits is something that is designed to bring fresh faces onto a committee, but I have seen it too many times when people have stood down due to term limits only to be replaced by folk who do not really match upto thats persons standards and commitment.
Or in worse case scenarios no one has came forward to fill the position and then it just gets into one big mess.
There is always going to be natural changes due to people coming off a committee for health reasons, job changes, move of location, wife doing her nut due to time spent on computer etc.
I would say just leave things the way they are but its something that can be reviewed.
Regards
I will straddle the fence here and say that I'm "undecided". 
I think if this were like congress where new candidates were required to face off against individual incumbents then "yes, I support term limits" if only to level the playing field for less familiar handles/faces. Given, however, that we all run for "member at large" positions, as a "new" candidate (having never served on OR run for TalkBoard), I think the playing field is level and that choice should lie in the hands of the votes, not policy.
I think if this were like congress where new candidates were required to face off against individual incumbents then "yes, I support term limits" if only to level the playing field for less familiar handles/faces. Given, however, that we all run for "member at large" positions, as a "new" candidate (having never served on OR run for TalkBoard), I think the playing field is level and that choice should lie in the hands of the votes, not policy.I'd tend to say no. If someone does a good job on TB, and people want to carry on electing them because of that, then why should they be forced to step down after an arbitrary number of years? Surely we want the best people on TB?
There seems to have been a natural turnover during the years of TalkBoard's existence as people find they don't have the time anymore or just get sick of it . I anticipate this trend continuing, so I don't see a need for term limits.
. I anticipate this trend continuing, so I don't see a need for term limits.