If the Board of the Trust made decisions with the full active endorsement of the membership that is a far more dangerous strategy than upsetting 6 people acting in isolation against the apparent wishes of the majority of the membership. It’s about controlling what you can and forgetting about what you can’t. The current strategy has failed spectacularly in case you haven’t noticed. I would suggest the best option is to try a different approach, rather than repeating the same mistakes and presumably getting the same results.
As I've already said, I don't think this has anything to do with either side 'upsetting ' each other.
Regards accountability within the Trust, you have made that point many times. I don't know who dropped the remark 'people like you want the Trust to be a referendum party', back to Peter Frost, but it's probably quite appropriate and succinct for your good self?