A couple of points in response. Our current board, in my view,...

A couple of points in response.

Our current board, in my view, has two core sets of capability. The first comprises individuals with strong political links but less experience in running a profitable business. So they may be smart with a good sense of social obligation (?) and an understanding of the machinery of government but that isn't the same as running a business. These are useful skills and provide connections that may help us but - do we need three of them in this category. I believe that is overkill and potentially has a few negative impacts - (understanding of governance responsibilities on a commercial board, less weight is placed on commercial skills if the board is not to be too bulky and in this case focusing on federal politics and connections - cf state based - ref Dirk's comments on Washington).

The second set of skills is primarily associated with what I'm going to call entrepreneurial capitalism. (Alternative - venture capitalism but I think that is a bit more restricted). While this is a critical set of skills on any board it is not the same as actually running a profitable business which requires marketing and sales of a commodity - albeit a specialist commodity. A B2B business. A business that is breaking into well established territory dominated by big players. A business that is heavily invested in R and D but must commercialise that. (At last year's AGM gavin referred repeatedly to Alexium being an R and D company. That in itself tells you something)

I could do another of my long posts to demonstrate why I believe the board has the wrong composition and needs more solid business experience. But in essence I don't agree that we need more runs on the board before we get such people on board nor do I agree that these people are necessarily expensive. (As managers yes but as directors - not necessarily so). I understand that Gavin is looking for someone with such experience. That's a good thing.

You refer to Dirk, Bob and the team as well. Yes they may take us to the next stage but I am making a clear distinction between the Board and their role and that of the executive/ management team. They are different roles. The Board should not be micro managing or in the detail of the business or trying to manage it. They are essentially responsible for the strategic framework, and for ensuring that the executives are performing by holding them to account.

So that takes me back to where I was before - a strong commercial understanding is critical for that. Let me give you a concrete example. Last year's reports on sales, customer numbers, pipeline and so on were not much better than a pig's breakfast. (In case you are wondering - yes I wrote and contacted the business on the matter many times). My view was always that either whoever was writing that stuff was obfuscating or had no idea on sales. A properly skilled Board would not have let such communication go out the door - or continue.

Btw there is some argument that if you have a disruptive product (and ours appear to be ) you don't want someone seeped in the habits of their sector either. So there is a balance between understanding the operating environment and being creative in approach.

So there you have it. I don't want another politician or lawyer or Trey Gowdie on the board and I don't want another venture capitalist. I want a sound, well qualified, ethical and capable business person, preferably operating in a market that is translatable.

P