Again, the role was defined by the company, not by Brian. People's complaints about the constraints on that role belong at the company's doorstep, not a Brian's, IMO. The company's responsible for communicating with the shareholders. Whether they choose to use a shareholder representative to do that is up to them. Most companies communicate to the shareholders through their Investor Relations representatitves. Brian was not the Investor Relations rep. Not his fault.
Furthermore, I don't think there is ANY fault in any of this discussion about Brian and the Shareholder Rep position, either with him OR with the company. A Shareholder Representative to the Advisory Board is just that. He/She sits on the Advisory Board as a Shareholder, and provides that perspective, just as the Technology Representative to the Advisory Board would provide advice from a technology perspective. Nothing more nothing less. IMO, the discussion on this topic the last few days has been nonsensical. It's akin to people complaining that Apples aren't Oranges, and that they don't mow the lawn.
If you aren't being communicated to from the company, contact IR and ask questions, or complain to them. Contact RG and ask questions or complain to him. Or you should have voiced your opinion to Brian so that he can advise the company of that. If they replace him now that he has resigned, voice your concern to the next shareholder rep. If things don't change adequately for your liking, then either stratgize to mobilize a large shareholder base to enact a change by proxy submissions, or file legal action if you feel it necessary or sell your shares. Those are your options as far as I can tell.
Again, the company defines these roles and is responsible for ACTION. If you want action, take it up with them.
If you want to know what Brian was supposed to do, you could have researched his role through his posts, e-mailed him, or read the attached letter from David Pohl that announced his appointment. All DD that YOU are responsible for doing, not that some shareholder rep to the advisory board is responsible for doing for you. I am truly flabbergasted how this whole discussion has progressed, and how off base people's points are. The only criticism Brian deserves in my view, is from those who disagree with the content/opinion of his posts, just as I am criticizing you on the content/opinion of your post, UNLESS you have proof that he did not provide advice to the company from a shareholder's perspective. I don't have PROOF that he did or did not, but I certainly believe that he did, and that was his ONLY responsiblity. The rest of this discussion is hogwash, IMO.
http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/...
