I would still like to get the second Open Letter out at the end of this week if possible, but today's announcement certainly answers some of our previous questions and concerns!
I guess the originally planned "thank you" message will have additional meaning! Given the current transition, it would be a great time for us to assert Bristol's question about the actual role of the president. They certainly should have accurately defined what they are looking for in a permanent replacement.
We will still need to address further personnel changes as possibilities; I would like to maintain the request for performance metrics for these positions (as compared to standard definitions for those titles) and indications as to how and when further developments may occur, and the extent to which proper succession planning is happening. It could be that since his ouster from COB, this resignation has been planned but needed to get proverbial ducks lined up first. As for Paige and others, I still believe they should be given a chance to prove their merits. Paige does have a respectable resume and MAY be well qualified for her position, but the last name alone is enough to put a target on her back. As with others, I would want to know what she is supposed to be doing, and to what extent and how well she is doing it. It would be great if we ultimately discover that most of the rest of the team is competent and focused. For those who prove otherwise, I'm with the rest of you in that I think any "dead wood" needs to go.
I still also plan to ask Hypocrates' questions including why SPORT isn't on their home page, where the colorectal video went, do we owe Longtai $2M, etc. plus Devicerep's question about the FDA Early Feasibility program vs. if the focus should be exclusively on CE mark at this point.
I'm still taking notes! I hope to send a draft out Thursday and a final on Friday morning for distribution the same way as the first letter. We may need to refine our distribution list!
