2009/8/26 Robert Rohde <raro...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Gregory Maxwell<gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Robert Rohde<raro...@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. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
