John Clogg wrote:
>The problem is that the board presumes to speak for its members without
first soliciting their opinions.
I understand the frustration John feels, the board presumed to speak for the
members. They did so because we elected them to the board (Or in the case of
the majority we allowed them to be appointed.) We told them  that we trust
them to run the organization. The board did what we elected them to do; they
exercised judgment. As with all elected officials our only recourse is to
vote out the ones with whom we disagree.
 I find it ironic that many people have lately been decrying governance by
poll and focus group and here we are upset that no poll was done.
I do whole heartedly agree with, Dale Halterman who wrote:
>More importantly, it smacks of conflict-of-interest for an INDEPENDENT
advocate to hold an equity stake in the company which it monitors.
I guess it depends on how you define independent. The truth is that whether
the merger goes through or not we have issues with and for Interex. Let us
hold Interex's feet to the fire on the issues that really concern us. Among
these are MPE enhancements, Migration, EOS and OpenMPE. Let's press them to
advocate for those things we need.
The opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of my
employer.
Yosef Rosenblatt

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *