zlacker

>>nickru+(OP)
This all seems so weird, and the list of Board members doesn't make this any easier to understand. Apart from the 3 insiders, there are 3 other board members. 2 of them seem complete no names and might not qualify for any important corporate board. In a for profit shareholders in theory control the board, in a non profit I am not even sure of who really has control over things.

>>crop_r+k2
The board does and they are not supposed to have a financial stake in the non-profit. Usually they just vote their friends on. Welcome to the loony tunes that is nonprofit management.

Clearly Microsoft staked its whole product roadmap on 4 random people with no financial skin in the game.

>>dougmw+e3
> Usually they just vote their friends on

You actually think that for-profit corporate boards are significantly different, especially in the startup/early IPO phase?

>>PaulDa+D4
But those are people who have some skin in the game right? And shareholders can change the board structure right?

>>crop_r+15
I was at amzn when jeff formed the first board. No skin in the game, and no shareholders with any votes. I gather this is pretty typical.

>>PaulDa+l5
But Jeff was the shareholder and those were his nominees right? Not to mention he was mostly able to pick the board as needed. In for profit corporation there is a clear ultimate ownership in shareholders. No such thing here.

>>crop_r+E5
The claim was that non-profits "just put their friends on the board". No difference.