On 10 January 2016 at 09:53, Yaroslav M. Blanter <pute...@mccme.ru> wrote:
> On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
>> Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to
>> presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the
>> 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?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org