2009/8/26 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Robert Rohderarohde@gmail.com wrote:
However, in this case, even if we assume the seat was outright "bought" for $2M, I don't think there are
I'm not sure why people are behaving as though there is any ambiguity on this point. The Omidyar Network agreed to make a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation with the understood condition that their representative would receive a seat on the board.
There is no need for speculation, it is what it is, like it or dislike it.
I hedged my language because I don't believe it is that simple. I do believe the money and the seat are linked, but I don't believe just anyone could buy a seat for $2M. For example, I doubt Mr. Kohs would be seated even if he had $2M to offer. Describing the seat as being "bought" ignores the fact that Mr. Halprin does bring valuable skills, associations, and what appears to be a compatible philosophy. Would he have been appointed without the financial backing? Probably not. But I don't believe it was the only factor under consideration. (Or at least I want to believe that the existing Board is capable of walking away from "piles of money" if it came with too many strings and conflicts attached.)
Now we're arguing about semantics. I'm sure the board wouldn't appoint someone they didn't think would be good for the job regardless of the money offered, but I also don't think they would have appointed Matt without the money. I think that fits the definition of "sell", others may disagree but it is semantics and is unimportant.