Would I work for options only?

Perhaps you recall that this is exactly the compensation approach I've suggested. Therefore, the answer is yes - but read on.

This change to compensation policy is something that would have to come over time, and would be somewhat dependent on circumstances. Anyone expecting an instant change due to one new Board member is not being realistic.

Perhaps this opens a door to how I would approach such things. If elected, I would accept compensation comparable to others of similar ranking for two reasons. One - what's fair is Fair. Two - how can one uncompensated BOD member ask for others to consider a change when, in that scenario, I have nothing to lose? Put another way, it's generally easier to pursuade others to make a sacrifice when you are willing to make the exact same sacrifice at the exact same time. Another consideration is the level of respect for the one uncompensated member of a team.

I mentioned "circumstances". Typically a BoD is not a "working" group of people. That is not their customary role, unless they also hold another position within the company - in which case the "work" is to fulfill the responsibilities of that other position. There has always seemed to be a near complete ignorance here as to what a BoD is typiccally chartered to do. But getting back to "circumstances", if there were the need to operate in contrast with the customary role, and the BoD position demanded regularly scheduled work days, or frequent work, then salaried compensation would be appropriate, would it not?

However, if if the BoD were performing the customary role, I would whole-heartedly support this refinement of compensation policy.

I hope you appreciate my candor.

SGE