Hey Stephen! I’m really happy to see you here; it was awesome to meet you in person at KeyCon.
The point you make is a very fair one in general, but in the particulars I would like to suggest a bit of supplemental information that you might find helpful/reassuring. In some of the reactions I’ve read in response to the creation of this site, I feel like a few folks are operating on surface-level details and inferring things about those of us who are working to build Keebtalk that wouldn’t at all seem justified if the people making these inferences had any particular knowledge of the people or circumstances involved. (For example, assuming that Keebtalk is some kind of anti-Massdrop site, even though we started the project well before anyone had any idea whom GeekHack was being sold to.) Of course, in these cases, it’s simply our job to explain.
It’s absolutely true that I personally really like both Olivia and Nathan, and I am the board member who nominated each of them for membership, but I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that I’m particularly intimate friends with them (or, at least, not yet). I think I have, for example, actually spent more time communicating with you, in person and online, than Nathan. And I just met Olivia this winter and have only spoken to her in person on two occasions (NYC, Keycon), and very occasionally here and there on Discord. The two just seemed like generally well-liked members of the community, and people whom I have experienced directly to be both thoughtful and very friendly, even if those interactions have been somewhat limited. (I tend to trust my instincts about people.) They were also explicit early supporters of the site, which I think is really important (I actually don’t agree it would be particularly valuable to have people on the board who are naysayers to this site’s existence, assuming I understood your suggestion correctly.)
So, yes, we are acquainted, but rather less than it might somehow appear. And, in any case, it would be bit of a catch-22 to try to pick people based on their character and community interactions and also have them be people with whom we’ve never interacted at all. The keyboard world is still a pretty small community of humans, and most people who are at all active have some acquaintance with most other people who are active as well. That’s a good thing, in my view. Knowing that, we just focused on finding people who might help us set the right positive tone for the community (an “intentional culture,” to use the term of a recent supportive post, which I quite like). Olivia and Nathan were simply the first results of our brainstorming along those lines.
I, for one, would actually be very happy to endorse and vote for someone like you (including literally you) to be on the board, @Peiweisgreat, along the exact same criteria I applied when suggesting these recent two additions: you’re someone I’ve encountered in person at a meetup who seems really sincere and nice, both to me and other community members with whom I’ve seen you interact, you’re clearly pretty committed to keyboards in your life, and you seem more or less to be on board with the premise of Keebtalk. You also have the added advantage of not being a vendor. Furthermore, all us current board members have super nerdy, computer-based jobs; we could do with someone who has a respectable profession like a chef. 
Other board members may have more rigorous criteria, and I am just one vote, but the things I mentioned above are the very simple things that make a good board candidate in my eyes. So, yeah, I’m not sure how large of a board we’re looking to assemble, but if you or anybody with these sorts of qualities to bring to the table wants to serve on the board, they should let us know. I hasten to add, however, that being on the board is mostly just a pile of boring little chores, and it shouldn’t confer any kind or prestige or status beyond the pleasure of service. So, to whatever extent Olivia and Nathan can be called my friends, I owe to them my sincere apologies for roping them into this obligation. 
