Michael Snow writes: And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting
things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it > look > better. > I think Michael's point here can't be overemphasized. It seems to me likely that there would be just as much criticism and/or expressions of concern if the Board appointment had been offset by a few months as there was when the grant and the appointment occurred close in time. Perhaps there would have been even more criticism, for the reasons Michael outlines. The fact that the Board opted to go ahead with the appointment, knowing full well there was a strong possibility their motivations would be questioned, is an argument *in favor* of Matt's candidacy for a board appointment -- specifically, the Board felt Matt added so much value that it was worth the risk that the appointment would be criticized as being a condition of the grant. --Mike Godwin _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l