I can name at least a couple, and just to answer briefly answer you and not ignore your question, you argued that Lecky approved the recent PDS resolutions, and argued that they meant that PTSC wanted TPL to only market their other portfolios ALONG WITH the MMP. I understand you disagree, but the facts don't support your opinion, so it's not just a matter of MY opinion.
That being said, the reason for my including this was not a dig at you, but to illustrate the kind of mindset that seems to infect our existing BOD, through their willingness to hold everyone but themselves accountable for what PTSC has endured. Nothing more.
As for the ALL shareholders remark, again, not aimed at you. I understood your point, and took advantage of your post to point out that this BOD's actions cause shareholders to be unable to infer the logical and proper meaning to simple statements such as yours.
As for the qualifications, I certainly think those qualified as you enumurate, even without "network connections" certainly can have a place on the BOD. Network connections obviously would enhance the qualities of such a member, and may be instead of some of the others.
As for the acquisition of government contracts, prime or otherwise. For starters, I don't think that PDSG is going after PRIME contracts. At least not in the way the RFP's for things such as Fusion Centers and similar items we've heard of to date. CDX is a component to an overall secure data exchange project, as I understand it through the company's commnunications and my own research. If you think otherwise, I'd be interested in your perspective as it would provide a new understanding of what PDSG is offering, IMO.
As for "GOVERNMENT" work, that can take on many meanings. It can be as simple as at the local level where companies go after RFP's solicited by local municipalities for certain aspects of things they are looking to implement, to large scale things like Fusion Centers, Cross Agency connectivity, New Fighter Jets, etc.! And ALL of them are "connection" driven to a point. Probably much more so at the local levels where City Councils, County Commissions, Mayors, City Managers all can have a say or even the FINAL say as to who gets what. If you don't think that's so, then you have a very narrow structure of contracts in your experience, even as vast as you intimate it is. I can tell you from my experience as someone who has pursued public work for 20 years in various capacities, and worked with lobbyists who have communicated many interesting anectdotes of their varied experiences, connections play a major role. The very hire of Baroni supports my point. And the point of PDSG's contract successes speak to the prime/subcontract issue above.
By the way, as much as I've disagreed with your various positions over the years, hopefully you realize that in the hypothetical ballot on which I advised Fatwollit, I actually VOTED FOR YOU!!! Talk about delusional! lol.
