I support term limits in part because I think that there are far more people willing to volunteer to help FT than what we currently see. I see this as a way to help engage those willing to volunteer, and perhaps a way to prod more people into volunteering as well.

When the same people serve for long periods of time, my experiences have been that it discourages new people from wanting to volunteer. They feel their opinions and ideas will be discouraged or ignored, and at that point, why bother?

I've seen this first-hand in other organizations, and it has kept people from participating who might otherwise have great ideas on how to improve the organization.

The powers-that-be are circling the wagons.

If you are unwilling/unable to see any problems with FT, or deal with the rogue moderators and the problem of the "disappeared", it is time to step back from management and time to recognize the wisdom of term limits.

^

^

I am not so sure about that...

We do not seem to have a lack of candidates each year.... never struggling to get people to run.

I honestly do believe that most people are very happy with their experience and are not that upset about many things.... thus why we have such a small core of people that even take part in this forum.

People cannot say they do not know about the Talkboard unless they truly have their head in the ground... there are Stickys, Announcements, Talkmail and voter avatars. People know, but either do not care... or do not believe there is anything to "worry" about.

I am not a fan of term limits, I do trust that people vote for who they want to represent them... be it moderators or non-moderators or ambassadors. Is it a popularity contest, possibly for many. Heck, several of the people running chose to not even participate in the "debates" and then have members who - once elected - do not participate in Talkboard.

People say Flyertalk needs to change... but nothing get recommended except give us control over the moderators. Is that really the big issue of the day? Do most members even care about that? I am guessing that less than 1% of the membership ever has "disciplinary" contact with a moderator. But it has been interesting to watch who has been the most vocal about wanting control over the moderators.

I wish the Talkboard would take on issues such as: software platform; wikiposts; site design; forum formatting. I think the group could have such an impact on studying/recommending direction in those areas. I believe that IB and Carol would be open to hearing their thoughts. They have now been in place for about a month... and nothing yet has really gone on the table that is new.

Well, the stakes are a teeny bit different.

Historical tendentiousness/jejuneness alert.

Are we surprised?

Absolutely. Tom Paine would be proud.

I think you might see more people running for TalkBoard and more people voting if there were term limits. I'd hope that more people would think they could make a difference.

As far as moderators, that's probably best for another thread, perhaps the one inquiring about if there should be a thread in each forum for discussion of moderation?

I have some constructive ideas for improving the management of FT on a day-to-day basis.

This is not one of them.

This is an idea to allow more and different people to be engaged in FlyerTalk.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people perceive some sort of 'anti-moderation' agenda to this proposal. It limits the amount of time populists like me can serve every bit as much as it limits the amount of time moderators can serve. Not because I am a populist or because someone else is a moderator. Because letting more people get involved is in the long-term best interests of FlyerTalk.

It is interesting that moderators and long-time TB members (not all of them, certainly) seem to be the ones who are most vehemently opposed to this proposal.

And yet, I don't see why it's such a big deal. I read a post yesterday where someone said we'd be depriving the membership of the ability to vote for their desired candidate. But the only term limit this would impose would be a one year break after four years of service. Surely nobody is that indispensable that serving only 4 of 5 years would be a detriment to all of FT and a disenfranchisement of the voters.

Also, if this is such a terrible thing, I wonder why the hundreds of people who voted for the candidate(s) who would be affected haven't come into the thread and complained about the proposal.

This.

I won election this year and one of the first things I am in favor of is making sure that I can't be elected for a third consecutive term. Well, bring out the black helicopters.

Those of us who vote for this are clearly putting FT ahead of ourselves -- we are limiting ourselves *just as much* as we are limiting others.

Except the proposal does not truly limit your participation... you just have to not run for one year... and then you can come back for another four years.... not really doing much to get new blood engaged in Talkboard. I am a firm believer that most people get elected to Talkboard because of being known (for good or bad reasons). Name recognition is what I believe drives most votes.

If people believe that the reason people are not more engaged in the dialogue in this forum is because there are not term limits, I believe they are living in a fantasy land. NOTHING has prohibited anyone from being an active and constructive contributor to this forum. Even if you said that two of the people standing for election could not, that would still only open up two spots to the many people who ran for office.

The people who participate and are active are people who care and take an interest in this forum. The others are benevolent users who probably are fine with NOT having a say in the day to day management of this board.

Well perfect is the enemy of good enough. I'd support 'tougher' term limits. But politics is the art of compromise.

Almost anything that opens FT up to more volunteers is a good thing. This does that.

And I have more ideas to get more people involved in the management of FT. Stay tuned. :)

Exactly. Well-said. ^

^
This is the new, improved koko. This is why this year's TalkBoard will be fun, not frustrating.

Bolding mine: Correct-it is about term limits and nothing else tho imho, those who are both moderators and TB members are feeling threatened that (and again, imho) a little piece of their fiefdom is being taken away

I like this proposal as striking a reasonable balance between strict term limits and none at all. Strict term limits (2 and you are out) are a great way to handcuff an organization... why would you freeze out your best people for life when your membership wants to elect them? At the other end of the spectrum, no term limits can lead to stagnation due to the generally stubborn incumbency advantage.

This proposal requires regular refreshing, allowing new people to prove (or disprove) themselves while providing a minimal level of frustration of voter preference since the disqualification period is very brief.

Exactly.

It seems to me that the entire point of term limits is to prevent people from using an office to consolidate power such that future candidates are inherently disadvantaged. For this to have any relevance, there has to be power involved...and I simply don't see how this applies here. Every other argument makes little sense to me.

Bottom line is that if a given slate of TB members was running things into the ground, we could simply vote them out.

I say no to this.