As the early "sounding board" discussions pre-date your registration here, Dov, perhaps you should PM Randy directly about it. (I'm not at liberty to post private communiques that would satisfy your semantic concerns.) What I can say, freely, is this:

Randy has long sought out constructive input on FT's direction, structure and management from the membership. One of the earliest round of AdvisoryBoard invitees was in May or June of '01, of which I was one (along with at least two others who've posted in this thread). Though Randy made it very clear that he wanted FT to be represented by all sectors of the membership, I was never under the impression that our recommendations were anything other than elicited opinions. Currently, with the enumerated, formal TB Guidelines in place -- including language such as "elected" and "advisory board" and "super majority vote" -- TB's essence is as it always was. And that is, a sounding board for FT's host.

Maybe the objection about descriptors here is about a perceived lack of power that rings from "sounding board" rather than "advisory board"? I suppose that could rankle some sensibilities. But the reality is, at the end of the business day, someone must make a decision about FT's rules and regs. For now, the committee known as TalkBoard is _not_ that final arbiter.

As for what the final arbiter should do, that's another matter. However, unasked-for advice once a decision has been announced and justified borders on badgering.