Originally Posted by Souvlaki (Post 17656806)

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.

Originally Posted by 2old4coach (Post 17674430)

how do we vote?

Originally Posted by Dovster (Post 17674595)

Originally Posted by bhatnasx (Post 17626186)

...I think our members are competent enough to vote for those they think do a good job and those folks should be allowed to serve as the members choose them.

Originally Posted by Jenbel (Post 17653378)

It is a bit disturbing to read so many of you seem to think that having more turnover on TB will make TB more amenable to change. How do you know that - the members may continue to elect TB representatives who prefer the status quo?

Is this being done because you think it will be good for FT, or because there are certain individuals on TB who you want to get off, but keep being elected by the members?

If it's the latter, well frankly, I'd be very disappointed that you were trying to change the rules because you don't approve of whom the members elect. You don't get to make that choice - they do.

I think this does have potential to be a positive thing, but I fear it is being done for underhand, manipulative reasons, where you are trying to circumvent who the members have been chosing to represent them and stack TB to be more like what you would like to see, rather than what the members would like to see.

It seems some would like to see TB set itself up in opposition to the management of FT - there would be only one outcome to that, and that would not be good for TB or for the members you supposedly represent.

Originally Posted by squeakr (Post 17675521)

What I am trying to do is what we all should aspire to do - evaluate the post not the poster. I am trying to separate what may be an intent I don't care for, from from the actual proposal, which with the "one year off and can be re-elected" proposal seems quite decent.

I would NOT be in favor of absolute term limits and am only marginally in favor of the proposal cited above but I'd be OK with that.

Originally Posted by bhatnasx (Post 17626186)

I voted against this already...I think our members are competent enough to vote for those they think do a good job and those folks should be allowed to serve as the members choose them.

That said, as of now, this year is likely my last year running for TalkBoard when my term expires, so this doesn't really impact me personally.

Originally Posted by Ancien Maestro (Post 17684236)

When are the results in?