I am more in the middle of yes and no on this one the way the question is proposed. I did vote yes that there should be some time limits. However, my vote for yes is probably not for the same reasons as most others are talking about when it comes to time limits. What I mean is, instead of having a maximum amount of time to turn in the work and move up to the next degree, what about having a minimum amount of time a person should serve at that degree before being allowed to turn in the work and moving up? Lol, hear me out first.
I have been doing some reading that a long time ago they would make the apprentices serve under the masters for a long period of time learning the craft. I have read that sometimes it would be just one year, but I have also read some other sources that would say that they would serve about seven years. Then, once they reach that next degree they would serve in that level learning that part of the trade for a good while and if were proficient at it, they could move up again after another required time. Now, I know that was back in the "operative" days and we are all "speculative", so I am not saying that an EA needs to wait seven years...lol
Now, I do totally agree that if we were to say that a man has to serve as an EA for a year before he can become an FC, and then stay an FC for a year before becoming a MM would cause the numbers in membership and active members to dwindle. But to paraphrase what someone else said in this forum "quality to quantity". I pick quality. Every man learns his own way, and some take longer than others. I agree with what a lot of everyone on here that there is so much to learn and with the system that we have in place tends to make us want to race to become a Master Mason. If the time limits were turned around, there wouldn't be that rush cause the candidates would know that they have to serve a minimum amount of time before they can achieve that goal. Yea sure, we all know that it hardly ever takes anyone the full year to learn the proficiency work, but what all are they learning before they turn it in really? Other than the Q's and A's, what deeper stuff are they learning about themsleves, the Craft, and that internal temple we are trying to build?
In summary, I did vote yes that there should be some time limits, but not in the manner that we use them today. Have someone serve a minimum amount of time and at the end of the time, turn in the the proficiency. There very well could be less nervousness and jitteryness when they are being tested, and plus, I'm sure they could learn more about things during that time than just what is required for the proficiency.
As always, just my own little opinion. Plus, I think how things were done a long time ago was really cool...lol