+1 to that. Do a max of two terms (either back to back or with a break in between) then move on. This is a BBS where people discuss first world problems after all...

Strongly agree.

For those of you who just want to listen to the voters, maybe you support a FT forum wide poll?

Thats a great idea on many subjects@:-)

I'm in favor of term limits, as it gives more people an opportunity to volunteer and also it gives people a break from serving, and gives them a chance to relax and enjoy being a regular member.

The currently suggested motion allows for previous TB members to run again, after taking a year off, so it's not limiting them to 4 years and that's it. It's simply giving them a vacation for at least a year.

i before e, except after c ;)

As for the topic, I lean towards supporting term limits. There were a lot of members who ran for TB, and mostly former TB members were elected. Terms limits allows for some new blood, never a bad thing...

I didn't realize TBers took a break from being a regular remember or weren't able to relax during their tenure. ;)

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

As I think someone else said on another thread, no longer having to log-in and check a specific forum was a change for them.

Huh? I fail to see any relevance 1984 has on the quote, or even on this topic in general.

Drawing an inference from one datapoint is a poor foundation for policy.

Just responding to some of the doublespeak posted thus far.

As I said in the other thread, I am not a fan of term limits.... I trust the voters.

HOWEVER, if term limits are going to be instituted to get "fresh blood", then it should be that no member can serve more than two full two-year terms EVER. None of this take a year olff and you can come back on.

I would also say it should apply to current members as well... and should not be grandfathered in. If you will have served two terms at the end of your current term, you are ineligible to stand for election again.

Either do not do it... or do it all the way.

I would be more than happy to vote for 2 terms and never again. I will do my absolute best as a TB member, but I have no problem going back to being a general member after a while. However, I'm doubt that has a snowball's chance in you-know-where of passing.

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.

Wow.. 2 terms in a row and never again..

I guess if TB really wants new blood, this is the way to do it..:)

^^^^^^^^^^^

(And I add my amen to Eastbay1K's comment with love and respect to a few members of the current TalkBoard who I consider good friends.)

Who's to say the fresh blood can't reach out to the crustiest, oldest, and most dedicated former TB members for advice and counsel?