On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Gregory
Maxwell<gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Robert
Rohde<rarohde(a)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.