Obviously your first task is to get a good prototype in their hands as quickly and painlessly as you can. This is undoubtably the best thing you can do to build a case for an objective assessment of both your company's abilities and the technology you work with.
But ... the organization seems screwed up anyway. Board members shouldn't be making operating decisions of this sort unless they happen to be part of the implementation team. And that would be unusual in most organizations. And he should be clear about which roles he plays - if he's the project lead then his ass should be on the line for completion. If he's acting as a board member he should trust his staff and allow them responsibility because it will be their ass on the line.
My guess is that his ass isn't on the line but he's going to do his best to make those whose asses are on the line do things his way regardless.
The other issue is that in essence he's saying he doesn't trust Musea, a potential vendor, to make an intelligent choice. That also raises red flags IMO.
If it were me, unless I really, really cared about the organization I'd run away and never look back ...
If you win the business and do a good job, your board member will probably continue to say "it would've been better in .NET"
If you win it and screw up, due to faults of your own, the inability of the client to spec a system that meets their needs, or both, you'll here "the project would've been a success in .NET"
What you're *never* going to hear from this board member is that they made the right choice by going with Musea and OpenACS.
You know that campy saying some people use ... "What would Jesus do?"? Ask yourself what Bill, the antichrist, would do.
When's the next board election? How much would it cost to oust this guy? That's what MS would do! :)
