[Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/8/26 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Gregory Maxwell<gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Robert Rohde<rarohde at 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.