IMO, labcoin (whoever that is) should be required to actually do one or two of the things promised in the Q&A prior to everyone wasting time forming a committee. (I also think you should refer to it as an advisory committee, rather than a board.)
If labcoin can't be bothered to follow through on a few simple promises as proof of good faith, the entire committee idea may be a ruse.
I think it was a good idea to have some sort of shareholder representation, but I agree that "advisory board" is not the best way to think of the group. It should be something more along the lines of "shareholder representatives" or something. The problem with the idea of keeping Sam accountable is that shareholders have no real power - unless and until we can prove his identity (which he is loathe to do) and keep him accountable under pain of actual legal action. So we can't really form a "board of directors" (in the traditional meaning) that Sam would report to, because it's not like we can fire him. Then again, he's probably even LESS likely now to give us his real identity because people are starting to go after Tatti by way of his employer. (Whether or not Sam is actually Tatti is irrelevant to this, as I believe either he is and he's pissed off that his employer is being contacted, or he's not and he's scared to see what Tatti is going through.)
We can say that we "require" him to do certain things, but it has no teeth, unfortunately. We can give him ultimatums, but what can *actually* be done about it that has real world consequences for him unless we have proof of identity? It all boils down to Sam's intent. If he wants to see the project succeed, he should be willing to hear input from a group of people who are better able to solve the problems he's running into - and he must trust that group of people to give him sound advice without fear of getting arrested or accosted in the street even after giving a good-faith effort. If this is the case going forward, we need to have thoughtful, deliberate, and rational people working to ensure they understand the big picture as well as the individual issues that are coming up on an ongoing basis.
If, however, he does not intend for the project to succeed, then he already has all the bitcoins, and we still don't know with any reliable amount of certainty who the real person is behind the keyboard. He's going to simply walk, and it won't matter what kind of machinations we go through to try and keep him accountable.
So, this is my viewpoint:
We form a group of 5 or so volunteers/nominees (no more than 10 in any case) who agree to meet regularly with each other, and also with Sam to discuss problems facing the project. There should be at least one EE on board, or at minimum someone with real experience with actual ASIC development. There should be a few people who understand business management, and at least one person with project management experience. This group should include at least one person who considers this a scam, and at least one person who considers this a sure thing. We need to have a balance of opinion here so that all sides are considered. Can't lose sight of the crazies, because sometimes they actually have a good point to make.
The group should meet at least weekly on their own, without Sam, to discuss what should happen during the following meeting with Sam. When the group meets with Sam, the meeting should cover past project goals, issues that have come up since the last meeting, and the plan for the next week, 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days. Assuming Sam wants the project to succeed, this should not only keep him accountable, but also give him a way to offload/outsource (sorry, couldn't help myself there) assistance from the shareholders.
Is that an agreeable format?
Either way, nominations/volunteers should be considered within the next 24 hours.
