Gsmaree, if you are suggesting that people just add 2 to the...

Gsmaree, if you are suggesting that people just add 2 to the board and nothing else, or for that matter just one to the board, then I cannot think of a WORSE thing to do.
The original board members will still have control of the board and can give the new directors no powers or jobs to do at all, and just go on their merry way of doing nothing much but looking to flog off the resource to the next group that makes a low ball offer.

The worse aspect would be 2 more BOD members to pay a yearly stipend to. It actually tells me that you have not thought of the outcome of your choice at all.

You also seem to be worried about agendas. Well the existing BOD have shown you their agenda, and yes the new BOD also have one and it seems to be different in getting the mine up and happening, in partnership with a Chinese group.

I would be very worried if the RM group did NOT have an agenda!! What the company needs is a solid plan with a partner that has the resources to make it happen. Without a cashed up partner, nothing will happen. All the planning in the world will not help as the company simply does not have the cash to build the mine as suggested in the scoping study without a partner.

There so many companies fumbling along with a resource and a plan to monetise it, that includes raising capital to get all the permits and BFS finalised, then nothing, as they don't have the finance. There is no point going on with all the work if you do not have a cashed up partner to make the plan happen.
Having Michael on the Board WITH POWER of the Chairman, will be the best opportunity to get a partner to fully maximize this resource IMO. I do not see the existing BOD having a plan to get the partner, they seem to be a if we plan it they will come, rather than being pro-active.

Voting Michael in, but with no power is IMO a wasted vote.