I’ve noticed that some board members have a moniker indicating membership to some “Expert Panel” of sorts. How does that work? How are the members of that panel chosen? Thanks in advance…
another question … what does the panel do? Do the members of the panel ever convene for tastings?
does the Expert Panel report into the Death Panel?
It is a sub-committee of the Trilateral Commission
great, now we have to kill you Phil
does the Expert Panel report into the Death Panel?
What are they experts on? Are they experts on death? Maybe they’re ninjas?
Pretty cool rubbing shoulders with such a mysterious and possibly dangerous group. Virtually of course.
I think we only have one. And he is essentially a sesquipedalian raconteur. Certainly an expert one though.
This is our uniform
Wineberserkers mods in conjunction with a few other participants are attempting to draw interesting wine personalities to this site to engage in discussion. John Gilman was the first to accept such an invitation. Hopefully there will be more people in the future to carry this tag, so long as we do not drive them away. 
Jorge - love the pink.
That mix of evil and tenderness should be enough to drive anyone away.
It’s a serious question. There are several regular posters on this site who are at least as qualified to be considered “experts” as the present member of the “Expert Panel”. IMO the way things are now just looks odd, as though the moniker has no real meaning, or is perhaps only a quid pro quo for someone to post here.
Daniel, are you one of those “few other participants”? If so, what was the selection criterion? Why not to call “experts” to other participants such as, for instance, Victor de la Serna and Francois Mauss?
Víctor de la Serna, François Mauss and Dan Rogov come to mind for me, as well.
I hate the Colonel with his wee-beady eyes!
Victor has been suggested to me, and I believe I already asked Francois, but he declined (correct me if I am wrong, Mssr. Mauss!). I’m happy to add anybody that the community sees fairly as an ‘expert’, and they so choose to. I asked Eric Asimov and he politely declined as well.
I might point out that if one carries the ‘expert panel’ badge, like a moderator, you might not be able to post in quite the same manner, having to watch yourself a bit.
French, does being a Know-It-All count? If so I nominate Posner!
He should get the HELLRAISER badge ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
Perhaps you could solicit and put together a list of people who would be suitable. I would suggest starting with Víctor, François and Dan, but I’m sure there will be a few others added to that list.
As it stands now, the “Expert” moniker means little on this site. If you can get a suitable group together here, it may come to hold more weight.
I don’t quite see why an expert would have to change his or her behavior; Mods do because they wield actual power on the forum, and so have to be somewhat careful of conflicts of interest in how they operate. But experts don’t. They simply have … expertise. That said, if you have particular requirements for experts, you should spell them out and give the reasoning behind them.
It was originally meant as a sort of an honor badge, in recognition of their status in the wine world, but perhaps it’s easier to leave it out altogether.
Thoughts?
I don’t feel particularly strongly about it either way, but I think the “expert” panel is not a good idea. It has the potential of setting up a hierarchy to the board, which I don’t think is a good thing. Additionally, there are potentially dozens of “experts” on this board depending on how one defines it.
