Great work Khout, RTheo, Jock and Hash with the question formulation & refinement.
My personal view is that 24 questions is probably too many and invites them to cherry pick and only answer the ones they want to (which may of course happen however many we submit).
The AGM isn't until the 29th so I don't think we need to rush the questions in by this Monday or anything. Let's take a week or so to refine further and really nail the issues we want them to address.
I reckon any more than something like 15 or 16 is too many but happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Should we start a different thread purely for this purpose so posts don't get lost in people's general comments / whingeing?
During the meeting itself we need a few of us to have lists of the questions we've agreed to submit in advance in front of us and tick them off as they get answered (yes I know I'm dreaming). The ones they try to ignore we put in the Q&A box which is I assume how they will want it done on the day.
If Guido and Wilbert are attending, which we have been told they are, I don't see them ducking
all of our questions, it will invite ridicule if they do.
The problem I can foresee is matey boy Dave, if he's 'asking' the questions on the day, doing the cherry picking and also repeatedly saying "under the terms of our NDAs with HGST and IMEC we can't reveal that information".
I don't think they will give us any metrics so we're better off wording questions to give us a decent idea of what we want to know without inviting them to just hide behind the NDAs - is that possible?
Oh and I agree we should break up the questions between multiple SH so maybe 8 of us submit 2 each or something. Actually thinking about it maybe we have a better chance of asking so many if 12 of us submit 2 each?
