This is interesting, because in that case I agree that not that many are counted more than once (except for maybe once for term limits, and once after Texas was included). With 6000+ views, its safe to say that at least several thousand FTers were curious on the subject. So maybe more than you think are interested in the term limits proposal? Most probably dont have to much to add to the discussion (another thing if they were allowed to vote by a poll), especially maybe on forum creation when we have seen how +1 posters have been treated lately. Rigid due diligence has been the norm.

TB should have runner-ups, able to vote on abstentions.

Also 3 strike out should be the rule, if elected members find themselves not able to participate (=minimum vote).

There's already a 3-strike rule in place. And any TB member can request another be removed for cause (although it's got to be for a legit reason - see the TB Guidelines for more info).

Whereas polls can be beneficial, I don't like them all that much for simple yes/no - if it were yes/no/don't care, maybe more beneficial...with that said, I prefer the discussion because 1) opinions can be swayed with discussions (as mine has with discussion) and voters can only vote once and 2) Each peson can determine their own value as to the noise-signal ratio and whether this is right or not, I value the opinion of an FTer who has been a member longer than a new person who has just joined the community...not saying newbies can't bring good discussion to the table, they can, but someone who has been a participant in this community's voice is more important to me than someone who is just starting out in this community - although I'll listen and consider all as a TB member.

Just referring to Boards in general..

The handcuffing parallel you speak of reminds me of the rules placed on US presidency.. serve 2 terms and you're out..

But US is still standing as one of the economic powerhouses of the world, so seems the handcuffing didn't surface.. this coming from a Canadian.:)

I've been away for a bit, so forgive me for being late to the party. I've tried reading the whole thread, but please forgive me if I have rehashed some points.

I am for creating term limits. To be clear, I don't think these should be permanent limits; just a cap on consecutive terms.

There are 2.5 reasons for term limits:

1. To prevent TB members from becoming jaded
2. To give members a chance to view FT once again from the perspective of a regular member, and not with the "beer glasses" of a TB member (these 2 reasons are connected)
3. Members who constantly run again and again create a name for themselves, giving them better recognition on FT and therefore an unfair advantage over newcomers who want to join

To reiterate, I oppose this measure.

Does anyone know if FT board members who have voted can change their vote once cast, before the ending of voting, or until all votes cast?

This may appear somewhere. Do we have a live running tote board ?

IB: Are we left to get a Carl Rove Chalk board? You want more members to participate? Get something flashy.... I'm going to sleep here! How about a scroll indicating who has voted and which way? Time till the end of voting etc? or something better!

From the TalkBoard guidelines:

"v. Once a TalkBoard member registers a selection that selection is final."

In the past, we've had an error correction due to a mis-click. Otherwise, TB members are not able to change their votes once cast. We do have 14 days to vote, so one usually has time to weigh all the options and implications of their vote.

Excellent! Thanks for the prompt reply.

Personally, I agree with as219's stance above.

To me, the TalkBoard seems most like one of these kinds of boards: http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/mayor/boards/ab_gen.htm

Note that all but the first one explicitly do not have term limits. I think the same reason for that is the same reason why term limits are not necessary for the TalkBoard, even if I do gravitate towards the idea of term limits in governmental legislatures.

However--there has been a pretty vocal response from the membership here. In a brief survey of the two public threads on this issue, there have been posts from 60 FlyerTalk members who are not currently serving on the TalkBoard. 42 have supported the measure, 12 have opposed it, and 6 posted commentary without taking an explicit position.

One of my campaign positions was to place a high value on feedback from the membership, even if it contradicts my own opinion. As such, and because while I don't think it's a necessary measure, I also don't see that passing it will have an detrimental effect on the TalkBoard, I have gone ahead and cast my vote in support of this measure.

Thank you for your patience as I attempted to balance a proper analysis of this measure with a brief recess from FlyerTalk as I dealt with some developments in my offline personal life. And with that, I'll send my appreciation for everyone who voted for me for the TalkBoard for this, my now final, TalkBoard term. :)

On 26 December 2011, the TalkBoard passed, 6-3:

Moved by nsx and seconded by SkiAdcock:

The TalkBoard recommends modifying the TalkBoard guidelines as follows:

Add a new paragraph 3.B.i.e.
e. TalkBoard members who are subject to the term limit defined in Section 3.D.i shall be ineligible to be candidates in the current year.

Revise paragraph 3.D.i
i. TalkBoard Member: The term of a TalkBoard member shall be two (2) years. There is no limit to the consecutive or cumulative number of terms to which a member may be re-elected. Five TalkBoard members shall be elected during odd numbered years and four TalkBoard members shall be elected during even numbered years. Term Limit: A FlyerTalk member is ineligible to be a candidate in the current TalkBoard election if by the end of the election period the member will have served on the TalkBoard more than three years out of the preceding four-year period.

Voting for: goalie, jackal, kokonutz, nsx, RichMSN, SkiAdcock

Voting against: bhatnasx, Cholula, Spiff

Thanks for the update..

Question: What were the reasons in the past to not change the old policy and leave it status quo?

Insufficient support among TB members.

Hope I'm not overstepping bounds here, but... if you're against the proposal, why did you vote in favor of it? Or am I misunderstanding either your post or your vote?

Jackal is as he stated following up on his campaign promises^

I didn't see the second half of his post :o

While I wish the motion had gone further, I want to thank the Talkboard for moving on the recommendation so quickly.