I've sent out the interim CEO/ spokesman ballot list to all shareholders, asking for any more suggestions, and I'm waiting for responses to that including yours. However if you wish, I can accept that with your last post you have agreed to the Ballot list and cast your vote for TradeFortress.
But we already took a vote for that.
Shareholder update: The following shareholders want a motion run to give the CEO seat to TradeFortress. This is the right of the shareholders.
294 usagi
483 tulkos
97 strello
unk. iCEBREAKER
300 fourd00rgtz
300 MikeMark
252 NameFace
1123 wisard
111 Evolvex
730 Razcnah
----
3690 61.5%
The motion would still need to be run to make it official. Haven't heard anything from Ukyo yet. I don't have time to pursue this anymore because I have some extra hours at my job recently so someone else will need to take the mantle. I've done what I set out to do (get the ball rolling) now's the time for the whole 'step up and do your part' thing. Someone needs to contact the relevant people (and police if necessary) and what not. Good luck!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1822746With the above 110 shares from iCEBREAKER and the new 230 we have 67% already voted. I don't see a point in voting again. In any case though I do not approve of nameface as CEO at all -- he has no experience running an asset and has been caught lying about his holdings in BMF, and being a real pain in the ass about it too, constantly accusing me of being a scammer despite having solid proof from both myself and burnside that his story does not check out. So while he has rights as a shareholder I feel if you try to push him in (esp. after the above vote) there will be serious problems.
I also suggest that instead of holding a vote again you get this done on BitFunder; TradeFortress or you could draft a motion and ask Ukyo to post it. I've already asked Ukyo to post it but he was away. If you ask him now, he will probably post it.
Edit:
Not sure if you have got the message, but Ukto is unwilling to change the CEO of the security or things like that because it was not specified in the description / contract. This is from wisard:
[snip]
Well, then shareholder motions have very little meaning :p anyways I can't be as involved as I was earlier on, so you guys decide what to do. My vote is for tradefortress as before, and I'll throw in with whatever he decides from this point on.