I know my votes won't have any impact on the outcome, but I'm trying to apply some logic to voting anyway. I'm dissatisfied with the way compensation is going and that dissatisfaction will carry over in my voting on a number of issues. John Thompson (former CEO of Symantec) heads the compensation committee and I now understand why upper management is getting huge increases while the workers are getting a pittance. He seems to be implementing the same model that allowed him to pull down $121 million from Symantec in his last 5 years as CEO. I've read a lot about him lately and I don't see any hint of concern for employees (read some reviews: Symantec Reviews in Springfield | Glassdoor). Scott Davis and all the other board members may love that Thompson is the compensation committee chair, but I don't. I'm voting no to Thompson for the board and no to anything his committee recommends. One thing that really frustrates me is the $15,000 they want to give upper executives so they can hire financial planners. Guess they can't pay for their own financial planners from their millions? C'mon. Board members: no to all the compensation committee members, probably yes to Eskew (c'mon man, do you have our backs?). Appointment of auditors: yes Omnibus compensation plan: no DESPP changes: no (because the board doesn't have our backs) Shareowner proposal regarding political $ reporting: yes Those are my thoughts. How are you voting and why?