I agree with the sentiment about "skin in the game" from the...

I agree with the sentiment about "skin in the game" from the directors but its also a double edged sword. If they do buy (and I do remember one of the SPP's where Dave Summit stated that he would be buying as much as he could - but that he was not a wealthy individual)and other directors would buy as much as they could. We don't know there personal financial situations. My double edged sword comment is if they buy they can also sell. There is nothing worse than a battling emerging tech player having directors selling their shares - even though it could solely be for personal reasons and nothing to do with the companies fundamentals - it can send the SP downwards at a rate of knots.
I think there personal stake in the company is the least of our issues. They need contacts, contracts, resources, and potentially more capital. They have regulatory hurdles to overcome, patent management, etc and thats not with standing the fact the techinical aspects of what they are doing are complicated and leading edge and... trying to this across many geographical and geopolitical landscapes.

So a more constructive discussion may be one where they are supported in their endeavours - do they have the right balance of skill sets on the current board to take them (and us) forward?

Stirring the pot for the sake of stirring the pot is not going to change the recipe!

All IMHO

Maddoc