These two statements by you are typically misleading, and likely incorrect. The level of expenditure on the Board of Directors was changed to these levels and can be adjusted again and again. There is nothing that requires them to stay at these levels other than the initiation of the changes.

The allegations are not of "doing nothing", the allegations (and actually they are more than allegations as the history shows them to be facts at this point), are that the majority of the current slate of Directors do and have historically looked out for their specific interests in front of the interests of the overall shareholder base, and that their skill sets are not the type that are complementary, supportive, or will help expand on the new business path that the company has embarked on since the formation of PDS.

That I'll agree with you on. It ISN'T the job, it's the performance of those in the job. Either they can't or have chosen not to perform with the interest of all shareholders in mind. I don't know them personally, and I don't ascribe negative traits to them personally through my criticisms. My understanding from others is that they are quite nice people and well qualified in their respective fields. It's simply that if you're trying to build a software company, and analyze targets in and M&A strategy that is focussed in that directioin, and forensic accountant, a lawyer, and an anesthesiologist, are not exactly the people you'd expect to have great expertise or insight into analyzing, advising, and networking with companies that can either become acquisition targets or merger partners, nor are the the type of people who would have the necessary skills to understand how to best manage and strategize for the development of that kind of business. Don't you agree?