>>j45+(OP)
I think the board is required to be a majority non-equity-holders precisely because an equity-holding board will not keep to their non-profit mission.
>>jprete+R3
Since it's a private non-profit corp it might be whatever they want the rules to be.
Arms-length neutrality on a board in silicon valley might still work like the rest as other comments have stated. Maybe someone can shed some light on it
>>j45+EA1
I’m presuming it was put into place as part of creating the capped-for-profit entity, to make sure the for-profit couldn’t itself permanently misalign the non-profit’s board.