On 10 January 2016 at 09:53, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru> wrote:
On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board
member objected to
James,
presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the
appointment
of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.
Would you please remain
civil. We do not have a Google appointed board
member, nor the bylaws provide a possibility for Google to appoint a board
member. If you mean Denny, he was not Google appointed, but community
elected, which makes a big difference. I, for one, voted for him.
Literally speaking, Denny was appointed by Google to Google, so
"Google appointed board member" is not untrue, though "board member on
Google's payroll" would be less confusing.
As for a member of the "Googleplex" who is "a little tarnished", well
that's a mild way of putting the facts about illegal activities of
major public interest, very polite even.
To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find
out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful
way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex. Presumably current
and past employees would have taken their stock options. Is that
possible to discover from the public record in the USA?
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae