What are the types of issues that can't be handled through either a basic thread, or through a survey poll? I assume that these issues are judicial in nature? If so, can I make a recommendation? Make it seven people. That way, there will always be a majority vote. I think the wisest thing to do is to appoint members that cover the age and interest spectrum of this forum. If so, I think five isn't enough to get the job done, while nine is too much of a headache to coordinate and get expedient responses. But that's just my opinion.
Of course, we are talking about a shift towards representative democracy, not direct as it is now. (Who am I kidding? The true nature of the system is oligarchic, though benevalent.) But if nobody has a problem with that, then so be it.
The trouble with appointing is that, historically, it becomes far too vulnerable to political manipulation. Imagine Clinton lining the entire Congress with nothing but Democrats. Voting through a survey poll, unfortunately, also has its problems. It often bogs down to a popularity contest. But, perhaps, there might be a happy compromise?
If I may make a recommendation on the selection process, start by narrowing down the volunteers to only those who surf this site in the past on a very regular basis. Remove junior members and maybe regular members if the list is too long. Then, draw up a list of age range and categories such as makers, dealers, manufacturers, and users, LEO, civilian, military, etc etc. And place these people within all of these categories. The idea now is to construct a panel of people, based on these categories, where the spectrum can be covered with the least amount of gap. If more than one candidate qualify for one of these slots, put them up in the survey poll for voting (no one can cheat by voting more than once right?). Of course, candidates for each of these slots should be polled separately.
I applaud for the bold, visionary step. It's so nice to see the forum attempting to keep pace with its environment. And, well, this is kind of awkward, but I'll throw my name into the hat.
To answer some of the concerns on this thread, BF.COM will always be Mike's to rule, and Spark's to execute. In that, they can shape the system any way they want, including on how the panel should function, what their roles are, and how long panelists can serve term. With the right mix and tinkering, this may just work out nicely.
[This message has been edited by SB (edited 11 April 1999).]