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
Sure, the investors own the company and the board answers to them. Nonprofits are significantly disconnected from their own financial incentives. I have witnessed it at every nonprofit I have worked for.

>>dougmw+j5
> Sure, the investors own the company and the board answers to them.

Huh? Plenty of startups in the stage being referenced are still majority owned by the founders.

>>cthalu+5i
Even if I only owned 1% of Google I’d be very motivated to vote in the best financial interests of the company. If I owned 0% not so much.