I stand by my earlier comments, in which I viewed the processes of governance associated with the board to be excellent. The diversity of board members, the robust discussions, the policies in place around conflict of interest, obviously specific to today's discussion, were rigorously maintained and monitored.
I suppose maybe there's some debate as to whether or not the process for minutes was comprehensive enough in various details. Clearly, they were lacking in some corners. They were certainly sufficient as we as board members saw them at the time.
The addition of new board members was very carefully considered and, again, rigorous in the sense that we were looking for the right sort of diversity of voices and balanced discussions at the board level, so the process for bringing in new board members was always about trying to make the board better.