I seem to remember, the EGM was initially arranged so that the current drivers of the careering company could be removed and more competent drivers put in their place. However the current drivers objected to having the replacements decided upon at the same meeting, hence forcing the situation where the company will be driverless until another hurried meeting can be arranged.
Isn't it then the current directors who have forced this instability onto the organisation, and not those who sought a seamless transfer of power?
Perhaps the spectre of their suggested instability and government intervention will materialise, not from the actions of its voting members, but the actions of its exiting directors, as they smash and burn everything on their way out? 'Cos they do seem to be acting like spoilt children.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
